quote:

---

Art. 5


The more grave delict of the attempted sacred ordination of a woman is also reserved to the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:


1° With due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.


2° If the one attempting to confer sacred ordination, or the woman who attempts to receive sacred ordination, is a member of the Christian faithful subject to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, with due regard for can. 1443 of that Code, he or she is to be punished by major excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.


3° If the guilty party is a cleric he may be punished by dismissal or deposition[31].


Art. 6


§ 1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:


1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.


2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;


§ 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition.


Art. 7


§ 1. A criminal action for delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by prescription after twenty years, with due regard to the right of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to derogate from prescription in individual cases.


§ 2. Prescription runs according to the norm of can. 1362 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law[32], and can. 1152 § 3 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches[33]. However, in the delict mentioned in art. 6 §1 n. 1, prescription begins to run from the day on which a minor completes his eighteenth year of age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Dear Lord,

even though the Anglican Communion is totally fucked, thankyou for the opportunity to be Anglican and not a Roman Catholic.

Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Frankly I stopped caring about what the Vatican thinks when they compared gay sex with the destruction of the rainforest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Whoever penned that little missive should be dressed down for intemperate journalism.

---

• bringing the code of canon law on graviora delicta into line with the practice concerning the investigation and punishment of sexual abuse by priests and religious of minors and those who are developmentally delayed;
• dealing other graviora delicta relating to sacramental matters such as the potential for abuse of the privilege of the confessional by for example Twitter and other social media and in a way that recognises the impact of modern communications technology

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
BBC News have "Vatican 'speeds up' abuse cases". Goes exactly with the OP: More abuse in less time. Remains to hope they'll soon excommunicate themselves soon. No communion with the faithful, and no communication either. Oh Lordy!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I suppose this is the bit where I point out that

• bringing the code of canon law on graviora delicta into line with the practice concerning the investigation and punishment of sexual abuse by priests and religious of minors and those who are developmentally delayed;
• dealing other graviora delicta relating to sacramental matters such as the potential for abuse of the privilege of the confessional by for example Twitter and other social media and in a way that recognises the impact of modern communications technology

are actually Good Things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I suppose this is the bit where I point out that

• bringing the code of canon law on graviora delicta into line with the practice concerning the investigation and punishment of sexual abuse by priests and religious of minors and those who are developmentally delayed;
• dealing other graviora delicta relating to sacramental matters such as the potential for abuse of the privilege of the confessional by for example Twitter and other social media and in a way that recognises the impact of modern communications technology

are actually Good Things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I suppose this is the bit where I point out that

• bringing the code of canon law on graviora delicta into line with the practice concerning the investigation and punishment of sexual abuse by priests and religious of minors and those who are developmentally delayed;
• dealing other graviora delicta relating to sacramental matters such as the potential for abuse of the privilege of the confessional by for example Twitter and other social media and in a way that recognises the impact of modern communications technology

are actually Good Things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Well, Joe baby, you've gone and stepped over the line of common decency, natural justice and any sense of godly, proper morality by comparing the sexual abuse of children to the ordination of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I never believed them when they told me that the Pope was the antiChrist, but I'm beginning to think that you, Joseph Ratzinger, may very well be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Whoever penned that little missive should be dressed down for intemperate journalism.

---

Please feel free to show us where it is wrong or misrepresentative of the Vatican's position.

---

For a start, if you're going to try to look repentant for having overlooked the sexual abuse of children and for having lightly disciplined the priests who harmed them, then how about issuing a document which appears to be dealing with the perpetrators of that harm in an unequivocal and repentant way.

I was serious when I said I don't know who comes off worse here.

The document certainly does give me the impression that the pope, at least, isn't actually all that repentant for the sexual abuse of children and he's apologizing to try to make the scandal go away.

If you are really aware of your guilt and your responsibility, you don't add a little addendum: "Oh by the way, those who ordain women are just as immoral as those who abuse children". "Oh, by the way, those who eat meat on Fridays in Lent are just as immoral as those who abuse children".


 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Intellect by proxy and Eliab,

Get this clear:

I've put in my non-aligned 2 bob's worth.

It is you prerogative as non-Catholic to rant and rave, go ahead and do so.

It might be more helpful for both of you good Xtians to pray foe the enlightenment of the benighted Roman clergy (after you've stopped patting yourselves on the back for not being RC)

m
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I never believed them when they told me that the Pope was the antiChrist, but I'm beginning to think that you, Joseph Ratzinger, may very well be.

---

And even on the assumption that the Pope does think that ordaining a woman is as rephrensible as child abuse, you seem to me to be guilty of a very similar fault in asserting that the mere holding of such an opinion is as reprehensible as 'being the antiChrist' and is deserving of "eons" of suffering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Intellect by proxy and Eliab,

Get this clear:

I've put in my non-aligned 2 bob's worth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm missing the part where the Pope, or indeed, anyone, says that they thing ordaining a woman is morally equivalent to raping a child. I cannot believe that he thinks any such thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm missing the part where the Pope, or indeed, anyone, says that they thing ordaining a woman is morally equivalent to raping a child. I cannot believe that he thinks any such thing.

---

An analogy.

If I, as a secular judge*, last month sentenced someone to 20 years in prison for child abuse then, two weeks later, sentence someone to 20 years in prison for stealing staples from the stationary cupboard, I have, by implication, said that stealing staples is the moral equivalent of child abuse.

In his recent 'clarification' on women priests, the pope has done just that.

* I'm not one, by the way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
It might be more helpful for both of you good Xtians to pray foe the enlightenment of the benighted Roman clergy (after you've stopped patting yourselves on the back for not being RC)

---

"patting myself on the back for not being RC"? Where did I do that?

Where have I ever done that?

I'm not RC. I don't feel the need to congratulate myself for that, or to rant about the RCC. That doesn't mean I can't spot bullshit talked about that institution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
An analogy.

If I, as a secular judge*, last month sentenced someone to 20 years in prison for child abuse then, two weeks later, sentence someone to 20 years in prison for stealing staples from the stationary cupboard, I have, by implication, said that stealing staples is the moral equivalent of child abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Here is my hellish answer: Apparently you are suffering from the same form of moral blindness as the pope is if you can't tell the difference between destroying a child's life and soul and breaking a rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Or to put it another way - do you seriously and honestly believe that the Pope in actual fact thinks that trying to ordain a woman is as monstrous and inhumane a crime as raping a child? I very much doubt that you think any such thing. So what's the point of debating the issue as if he did, when no one of goodwill could possibly think it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Based on his past actions, he totally thinks that ordination of women is much, much worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Am I missing something here or doesn't the Vatican's statement say something like :

If you are a priest involved with the abuse of minors (and we catch you in time) you are going to be punished and might be kicked out of the priesthood.

If you are a priest involved with the attempted Ordination of Women you are automatically condemned to spend all eternity in the burning pit of hell, and you might be kicked out of the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You get a new job, and the manager tells you that you'll get fired if you do not follow company regulations for handling chemicals. He also tells you that the company has a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment at the work place.

You therefore conclude that the manager believes spilling sulphuric acid is as morally depraved as raping the secretary, and terminate your employment in disgust.

Because you are a fucking moron.

(Not talking to Eliab.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobsen:
Poor old Joe. Limping away, having shot himself in both feet. Let's leave his balls out of the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Let's sack Rome. They deserve it, don't they? At the very least the EU should cut trade and diplomatic links with the Vatican, and starve them out. If only Martin Luther had finished the job!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Let's sack Rome. They deserve it, don't they? At the very least the EU should cut trade and diplomatic links with the Vatican, and starve them out. If only Martin Luther had finished the job!

---

I suppose after sacking Rome you propose moving the papacy back to Avignon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Am I missing something here or doesn't the Vatican's statement say something like :

If you are a priest involved with the abuse of minors (and we catch you in time) you are going to be punished and might be kicked out of the priesthood.

If you are a priest involved with the attempted Ordination of Women you are automatically condemned to spend all eternity in the burning pit of hell, and you might be kicked out of the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Look on the bright side, at least the Pope didn't impose an interdict on Argentina for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Never could understand a Church that believes that God could confer holy orders on a Borgia (May Alexander VI rest in peace) but can't confer it on either the Blessed Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Am I missing something here or doesn't the Vatican's statement say something like :

If you are a priest involved with the abuse of minors (and we catch you in time) you are going to be punished and might be kicked out of the priesthood.

If you are a priest involved with the attempted Ordination of Women you are automatically condemned to spend all eternity in the burning pit of hell, and you might be kicked out of the priesthood.

---

Where are you getting this from? I'm not a Canon lawyer (obviously) but it looks to me as if both are excommunicable offences, both are reserved to the CDF, and for either (depending on the gravity of the offence) a priest may be dismissed or deposed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
You have two half-decent points you could make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The other is that given recent history, it's a bit tactless to like OOW and child abuse. You could make that point perfectly well without the sort of intemperate posturing of the OP, where you attribute to the Pope not only an opinion which he does not hold, but which you could not in good conscience even imagine that he holds. If you are doing it for rhetorical effect, it's shoddy and dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Or do you think that tactlessly linking the two issues is actually the same thing as seeing them as morally equivalent? If so, then you really are morally blind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
And yeah, I stupidly think that imposing the worst possible punishment for those who support the OOW whilst pleading for forgiveness for many paedophile priests suggests that they think that OOW of women is as evil as child abuse. Oh, and they said that too.

---

quote:

---

And please can I live in a world where we are not subjected to your form of morality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by teddybear:
Am I the only one who noticed that there is absolutely no mention of canonical penalties for those who hide abusers or move them from diocese to diocese?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Much as I'd like to claim it as my own unique contribution to morality, the prohibition on the bearing of false witness against one's neighbour is considerably older than I am. I guess you're stuck with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
That some Daily Blats have chosen to highlight OOW (in the RCC, mind, doesn't comment on OOW or COW in other denoms) and juxtapose/equate this with the sanctions against Paedoing is mischievous, imo.

---

• Art. 1 This document deals with some serious stuff
• Art. 2 Yes, really.
• Art. 3 Mess around with the consecrated bread and wine and you’re in trouble.
• Art. 4 Give absolution to your partner in adultery and you’re in trouble.
• Art. 5 Even try to ordain a woman and you’re excommunicate, and you’re in trouble.
• Art. 6 Commit child abuse, and you’re in trouble.
• Art. 7 There’s a statute of limitations of 20 years.
• Arts. 8 – 31 Dull stuff on the running of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...sacraments are sacred. Kids are sacred. Don't mess with either.

Nutty, but consistent, which is how I tend to look at the RC Church.

---

I could live with this if child abuse by a priest automatically results in excommunication.
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
This ruling out of Rome would be laughable if the situation was nor so serious.
Equating the OOW with child abuse is stupid .
The penealty is not as sevre for the latter than the former. IMHO the latter should be the offence for which one can be excommunicated. Not the OOW.
Romes credability has taken another MASSIVE hit. Makes me glad that Hennry VIII split and I am an Anglican.
 

---

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
This ruling out of Rome would be laughable if the situation was nor so serious.
Equating the OOW with child abuse is stupid .
The penealty is not as sevre for the latter than the former. IMHO the latter should be the offence for which one can be excommunicated. Not the OOW.
Romes credability has taken another MASSIVE hit. Makes me glad that Hennry VIII split and I am an Anglican.

---

quote:

---

GENEVA - The Vatican has failed to send the United Nations a report on child rights that is now almost 13 years overdue, the head of a UN panel said.

---

quote:

---

"I've made contact with the Holy See on several occasions, " Lee said. "I haven't received anything."

---

quote:

---

While the Vatican delivered an initial report in 1995, the second, third and fourth reports are now overdue, according to Lee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
This ruling out of Rome would be laughable if the situation was nor so serious.
Equating the OOW with child abuse is stupid .
The penealty is not as sevre for the latter than the former. IMHO the latter should be the offence for which one can be excommunicated. Not the OOW.
Romes credability has taken another MASSIVE hit. Makes me glad that Hennry VIII split and I am an Anglican.

---

pls refer to my post at top of page. That these various offences are listed as grave delicts does not mean they are all =. Derrr

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...sacraments are sacred. Kids are sacred. Don't mess with either.

Nutty, but consistent, which is how I tend to look at the RC Church.

---

I could live with this if child abuse by a priest automatically results in excommunication.

---

quote:

---

The following persons incur excommunication latæ sententiæ:

• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
• a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
• a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
• a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery;
• a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
• a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
• a person who procures a completed abortion;
• accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed; and
• any Catholic who is a convinced member of Freemasonry, "notoriously" adhering to the Masonic vision, is already considered excommunicated latae sententiae.

Various other persons incur excommunication latae sententiae by papal decree, including:

• a person who violates the secrecy of a papal election, or who interferes with it by means such as simony;
• a woman who simulates ordination as a priest or a bishop who simulates the ordination of a woman as a priest.

---

quote:

---

Times like this I think the only sensible response to the whole laughably absurd but highly dangerous nonsense that is the Roman Catholic Church is to obtain as many wafers as possible and drop them on the Vatican...

---

If that's the case, then this might help
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...sacraments are sacred. Kids are sacred. Don't mess with either.

Nutty, but consistent, which is how I tend to look at the RC Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
pls refer to my post at top of page. That these various offences are listed as grave delicts does not mean they are all =. Derrr

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
By all means, put the latter in prison or in a psychiatric ward or whatever else secular society finds appropriate. But allow them access to the RC sacraments, in particular to confession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For one, the sacrament of penance is not available to the excommunicated.

---

quote:

---

Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ingo, if the sacrament of confession/reconciliation is not available to the excommunicant, how do they get re-communicant again? I ask in all seriousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For one, the sacrament of penance is not available to the excommunicated.

---

Not quite so. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (s. 1463)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We need to see what the RCC now does about child abusers. There are lots of words and declarations about, but let's see the RCC act swiftly on an issue on it has such a lousy track record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We need to see what the RCC now does about child abusers. There are lots of words and declarations about, but let's see the RCC act swiftly on an issue on it has such a lousy track record.

---

How interested have you been in finding out? You can hardly expect the mass media to report extensively on this. Here is what the US bishops are doing, you can read their full report for 2009 (link at top of the page).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wow! A Report and a Code of Practice. Big fat hairy deal.

---

What, even if it is a thorough, best-practice one and they carefully ensure compliance? It's just as well for the US bishops that they're only answerable in the final forum to GOD and not you.

Also, the US bishops have been extensively consulting "the professionals" from at least 2002. Their new code is a product of that consultation. The information's all out there for those who are genuinely interested in finding it.
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the effectiveness of any code of practice is limited by the motivation and trustworthiness of the people responsible for application and enforcement of that code of practice.
Up until fairly recently (and then mainly because of severe financial consequences) those responsible have failed to earn any amount of serious trust.
It may well be that they will earn that trust in the coming years, but for the time being one should not be over-optimistic, if only to protect the potential victims.

[ 17. July 2010, 14:00: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
OK, here's what I want to know about those who are excommunicated for championing the cause of women's ordination.

If people are excommunicated, stripped of their ordination, etc. and not allowed to receive the sacraments, how does any regular priest administering the sacraments know? I realize that word will be sent out, but unless there are Wanted Posters with Mug Shots posted in each RC church in the world, some priests wouldn't know by sight an excommunicated person from a visitor on vacation or someone just traveling through.

Example: A friend an I were on our way home from a trip and just about sundown on a Saturday, as we were admiring the countryside, we spied a RC church with bells tolling and people entering. Impulsively, we decided we wanted to experience mass in this setting.

Obviously, it was a small church, and I assume people noticed that we were not part of the parish--but if we had been excommunicated Catholics, we could have gone up for communion anyway, simply saying we were on our way from City A to City B and stopped by. We said nothing, sat through the service--which was lovely--and then outed ourselves as not in unity of spirit with Rome when we did an end run around the Right To Life Day rose handout at the end of the service.

(Now I'm imagining a street chase with Vatican officals laying down spikes to puncture our tires so we could be taken in for real punishment.)

But even so, we weren't wearing a scarlet E and no one in the congregation had ever laid eyes on us before. We could have been Woman-Ordaining-Radicals big time, and no one would have known. And if we had already taken communion, the deed would have been done.

So what's stopping an excommunicated person who dares to speak of ordaining women from simply moving on to a parish where s/he is not recognized? I just don't see how the Institutional part of the RCC can enforce excommunication among it's millions of members.

sabine
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wow! A Report and a Code of Practice. Big fat hairy deal.

---

• Trained more than 2.1 million clergy, employees, and volunteers in parishes in how to create safe environments and prevent child sexual abuse.
• Prepared more than 5.2 million children to recognize abuse and protect themselves.
• Ran background checks on more the 1,887,000 volunteers and employees, 166,000 educators, 52,000 clerics and 6,000 candidates for ordination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The RCC shouldn't do its own investigations, it should get the professionals in on Day 1, then, probably in a tenth of the time it would take the Vatican's bureaucracy, victims might have some confidence in whatever procedures are used.

---

quote:

---

11. The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation. In every instance, the diocese/eparchy will advise and support a person’s right to make a report to public authorities. [Footnote: The necessary observance of the canonical norms internal to the Church is not intended in any way to hinder the course of any civil action that may be operative. At the same time, the Church reaffirms her right to enact legislation binding on all her members concerning the ecclesiastical dimensions of the delict of sexual abuse of minors.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

But even so, we weren't wearing a scarlet E and no one in the congregation had ever laid eyes on us before. We could have been Woman-Ordaining-Radicals big time, and no one would have known. And if we had already taken communion, the deed would have been done.

(Now I'm imagining a street chase with Vatican officals laying down spikes to puncture our tires so we could be taken in for real punishment.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
If people are excommunicated, stripped of their ordination, etc. and not allowed to receive the sacraments, how does any regular priest administering the sacraments know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
So what's stopping an excommunicated person who dares to speak of ordaining women from simply moving on to a parish where s/he is not recognized?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I just don't see how the Institutional part of the RCC can enforce excommunication among it's millions of members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sure, sabine - if such a person's not worried about lying and tricking the Most Holy Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood out of the hands of His priests, let them knock themselves out.

You can call that "resisting oppression of one's discerned spiritual truth" if you like...

---

And from the Protestant view, it is making sacraments into idols and pretty well mirroring the society that the prophets ranted against when God complained through them that God hated the people's solemnities because of their inhumane treatment of their fellow human beings.

I'm sure that the sin sacrifices that the people of Judah and Israel were making in their temples whilst they were hurting their fellow human beings were regarded as equally serious as Catholic sacraments.


 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
If you're "sure" that our sacraments are so wicked, Seeker, surely we're doing these poor excommuncates a favour by withholding them then? [Although, if they agree with you, it's a bit of a puzzle why they'd try even by deception to get hold of them...]
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you're "sure" that our sacraments are so wicked, Seeker, surely we're doing these poor excommuncates a favour by withholding them then? [Although, if they agree with you, it's a bit of a puzzle why they'd try even by deception to get hold of them...]

---

quote:

---

Tweeted by LordPalpatine:
The catholic church puts female priests in the same category as pedophilia. In other words... perfectly legal?

---

quote:

---

While sexual abuse was a "crime against morality," the attempt to ordain a woman was a "crime against a sacrament," he said

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I found this article interesting. I could not help noticing that although Monsignor Charles Scicluna says several times that the two are not equivalent, he never makes clear which is worse. The closest he gets is:

quote:

---

While sexual abuse was a "crime against morality," the attempt to ordain a woman was a "crime against a sacrament," he said

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the two explanations.

I guess my view (from way outside) is that when one has a clear discerned spiritual position that is at odds with an institutional one (perhaps also discerned), a covert ignoring of the rules would be a way of not bending oppression of one's own spiritual truth.

But, I'm not an RC....

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the two explanations.

I guess my view (from way outside) is that when one has a clear discerned spiritual position that is at odds with an institutional one (perhaps also discerned), a covert ignoring of the rules would be a way of not bending oppression of one's own spiritual truth.

But, I'm not an RC....

sabine

---

I don't understand that. If you want to discern your own spiritual truth, why would you be Roman Catholic? They don't encourage the discerning of your own spiritual truth.

How can you be oppressed by a voluntary institution? You don't like what the Roman Catholic Church teaches then go somewhere else. If you want to voluntarily stay in the Roman Catholic Church, don't whine about oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I found this article interesting. I could not help noticing that although Monsignor Charles Scicluna says several times that the two are not equivalent, he never makes clear which is worse. The closest he gets is:

quote:

---

While sexual abuse was a "crime against morality," the attempt to ordain a woman was a "crime against a sacrament," he said

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sure, sabine - if such a person's not worried about lying and tricking the Most Holy Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood out of the hands of His priests, let them knock themselves out.

You can call that "resisting oppression of one's discerned spiritual truth" if you like...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Maybe you misunderstand the expression 'Once catholic'.

Someone can leave the institution but the institution will never leave them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
Leaving the church of your upbringing and forefathers is like disowning your beloved yet slightly insane grandma. It's very painful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.

---

I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.

But they most certainly did do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.

---

I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.

But they most certainly did do it.

---

How?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If Luther et al could find the courage to leave the evil institution then every catholic should. Those who stay are guilty by association.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Seeker963:
The sexual abuse of children is such a grave sin that its punishment is: "to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition."

The ordination of women is such a grave sin that its punishment: "incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If Luther et al could find the courage to leave the evil institution then every catholic should. Those who stay are guilty by association.

---

I was under the impression that Luther didn't leave the Catholic Church so much as was tossed out. I am open to correction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Repeat: no-one at the Vatican is trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two, even if any kind of sacrilege by a cleric is obviously ipso facto pretty morally serious too.

---

I'm not sure how we know they weren't trying to do it.

But they most certainly did do it.

---

How?

---

The sexual abuse of children is such a grave sin that its punishment is: "to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition."

The ordination of women is such a grave sin that its punishment: "incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
So similar punishments equals moral equivalence, does it?

In NSW the maximum penalty for murder and the maximum penalty for sexual assault in company (think broadly pack rape) is imprisonment for the term of the offender's natural life, an identical punishment for two very serious crimes.

However no-one in their right mind would suggest that murder and sexual assault in company are morally equivalent, for however severe the physical and psychological harm done to a rape victim - he or she is still alive with the possibility of recovery and a life to live.

I could probably pick out similar examples from the criminal law of other countries. There is a non-theoretical maximum penalty that the legislature of a country can prescribe for an offence. In some countries that is death. In others it is imprisonment for the term of the offender's life. However it does not follow, as a matter of logic, that the offences that might result in such a maximum penalty are morally equivalent.

Well, not on our planet anyway. But apparently it is on yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Hooray! Another x-post...]

First but not least - Leo, don't be an arse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

---

I thought it had been demonstrated that they're not given 'similar punishments'. Someone with a better knowledge of these things can certainly correct me, but I thought (given IngoB's post on the previous page, and this explanation) that excommunication latæ sententiæ was reserved for sacramental matters (and abortion). In these cases, the Church is not so much inflicting a punishment as making a statement about what She believes the state of the accused's relationship with the Church is.

In contrast (and this is where I may need to be corrected) I was under the impression that any excommunication as a punishment for child abuse would be ferendæ sententiæ and therefore represents the Church making a judgment about the defendant.

So, as much as I don't like to go out to bat for the Catholic hierarchy, I don't think that they have morally equated the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Pity you don't read your signature, isn't it, Seeker?

Too much time on hate and fear, indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
I didn't realise the phrase 'Jesus wept' was prophetic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Phil - that's all very fine and, in a way, I sympathise with the sentiment...

... except that who you bump uglies with is pretty relevant when we're talking about child abuse,

---

quote:

---

and the ordination of women surely does matter, whether you agree with it or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I see what you're saying but I still think it offends natural justice and I really don't see how we get around the morality issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Given the close association that the Catholic Church makes with itself and the Kingdom of God, we are reserving the possibility that child abusers can be included in the Church but that people involved in the ordination of women cannot be included in the Church because they have already deliberately excluded themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
We are equating, in some spiritual sense, the breaking of a Church rule which God might possibly not agree with (but we'll never know because we are not allowed to debate the possibility) with an action that by all commonly-used moral compasses is considered heinously evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
To try to wriggle out of the moral situation by claiming that there are two separate categories of excommunication is pedantry at best and immorality at worst.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

and the ordination of women surely does matter, whether you agree with it or not.

---

Does it matter to the exclusion of most other issues, especially the Christ given mission of the church?

Imagine how much good could have been done if we had ordained women when Emmeline Pankhurst was around... The whole gender equality issue could have been settled there and then. Its such a crying, and infuriating shame that the church is around 100 years out of date on a significant moral issue and is being led by secular society rather than leading it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

---

Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.

Am I far off the mark?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the two explanations.

I guess my view (from way outside) is that when one has a clear discerned spiritual position that is at odds with an institutional one (perhaps also discerned), a covert ignoring of the rules would be a way of not bending oppression of one's own spiritual truth.

But, I'm not an RC....

sabine

---

I don't understand that. If you want to discern your own spiritual truth, why would you be Roman Catholic? They don't encourage the discerning of your own spiritual truth.

How can you be oppressed by a voluntary institution? You don't like what the Roman Catholic Church teaches then go somewhere else. If you want to voluntarily stay in the Roman Catholic Church, don't whine about oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
I don't understand what you mean by "the morality issue". I don't think that anyone's trying to claim that child abuse is moral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
But I don't think the Church is equating them, since it seems that different rules apply in the two situations. You pretty much conceded this point in your reply to me, so why are you going back on yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
(And, while we're on the subject, others have comprehensively argued that giving the same punishment for two different crimes does not automatically mean that you equate them.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.

There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
Seeker963. She/he only sees those that agree with him/her; she/he dismisses counter-argument as pedantry . And anyone who doesn't agree, well they're just wrong.

Some of us, Catholic or protestant, would rather just get on with the difficult task of being Christian, rather than getting ensnared in the web of pointing fingers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.

There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.

---

Only that's not a principled stand - it's cowardly and dishonest. What would be principled would be to try to change the structure openly from within; or to decide that the issue of women's ordained ministry was so important that it was a matter of conscience to leave any Church that would not conform to your ideas to allow it. What you describe is divisive, a cause for scandal, dishonest, and treads roughshod over several other essentially Catholic principles in order to usurp another. If that isn't proof of the need to impose Church discipline over such issues I'm Princess Mary of Teck (count your spoons).

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

---

quote:

---

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by sabine:
Why obey when it is discriminatory? And why leave when there are othr ways to work toward a goal of inclusiveness.

I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.

There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

---

The Roman Catholic Church puts its members in a terrible position, then. It offers no place for open dissent, then roundly condemns heading for the local Anglican parish as apostasy.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

---

The Roman Catholic Church puts its members in a terrible position, then. It offers no place for open dissent, then roundly condemns heading for the local Anglican parish as apostasy.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Matters are complicated by another Roman doctrine. Last I heard, Rome taught that Protestants might get into heaven because they don't know any better, but a Catholic rejecting the Catholic Church is cause for damnation.

So a Roman Catholic who thinks that woman can lead the Church is stuck with either embracing a doctrine he or she deplores, or giving up salvation.

Zach

---

quote:

---

They believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. They believe what the RC says about hell and salvation. But, they don't believe what Rome says about the ordination of women? The Roman position is that they don't have the authority to ordain women and can't change it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...In other words, one must either be aware that what one is doing is gravely wrong or have no excuse for not knowing it to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
(And, while we're on the subject, others have comprehensively argued that giving the same punishment for two different crimes does not automatically mean that you equate them.)

---

And I’m saying that’s pedantic bullshit. I’m not sure how to be plainer than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

---

Sure, because anyone who understood the pedantic bullshit would agree with it.

---

Heaven forbid that we should have a conversation based on mutual understanding!
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Like Chesterbelloc said, they can dissent and attempt to change the system from within by voicing their opinion. Their voice will be ignored and their efforts will ultimately fail. My guess is generations will pass before the RC changes her mind on this.

The RC isn't like all of the other denominations. It is a large global institution. The laity ultimately have no authority over major decisions. The clergy in charge can promote only people that agree with them to higher positions. Change would require a large number of people slip through the cracks, become cardinals, and elect a Pope who would agree with them. Even then the battle wouldn't be over.

However, if you really believe all the church says about salvation, why not trust that they are doing the right thing? Why not accept the possibility that Holy, Mother Church in Her divine wisdom is doing the wise and pastoral thing by not ordaining women? Why not accept that ordaining women would lead the entire Church into apostasy? You've already accepted what they say about salvation and hell.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like Chesterbelloc said, they can dissent and attempt to change the system from within by voicing their opinion. Their voice will be ignored and their efforts will ultimately fail. My guess is generations will pass before the RC changes her mind on this.

The RC isn't like all of the other denominations. It is a large global institution. The laity ultimately have no authority over major decisions. The clergy in charge can promote only people that agree with them to higher positions. Change would require a large number of people slip through the cracks, become cardinals, and elect a Pope who would agree with them. Even then the battle wouldn't be over.

However, if you really believe all the church says about salvation, why not trust that they are doing the right thing? Why not accept the possibility that Holy, Mother Church in Her divine wisdom is doing the wise and pastoral thing by not ordaining women? Why not accept that ordaining women would lead the entire Church into apostasy? You've already accepted what they say about salvation and hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Heaven forbid that we should have a conversation based on mutual understanding!

---

Sorry, but this seems a bit ridiculous at the moment. I understand that you think I'm stupid, bigoted and ill-willed. What more do I need to understand at this juncture?
 

---

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
'Mutual understanding' is over-rated with respect to interesting conversation. I would go so far as to say, anyone claiming mutual understanding is either deluded or blowing smoke up your arse.

[ 19. July 2010, 00:05: Message edited by: Alfred E. Neuman ]
 

---

Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
Folks, 2010 is the 30th anniversary of my resignation from the Roman Catholic Church.

I've posted some of this elsewhere, but here we go again.

I stand second to no human in my admiration for John Paul II, even though I often refer to him as J2P2.

He was a key figure in bringing down the Soviet Empire. Which would have collapsed in due course anyway, but credit where's credit's due.

He also set the Church on a trajectory towards irrelavence by trying to reverse Vatican II. Benedict the Roman Numeral has simply stepped on the gas.

Folks, the fellow is in his 80s. He doesn't have time to rebound from these incredible scandals. He will be remembered as the Pope of the Pedophiles.

Already in Europe, in majority Catholic nations, the Church is increasingly ignored. In the US this is less so, but note that this former pious altar boy did not choose his handle at random.

The Roman Catholic Church will not be stamped out, it will simply . . . dissolve. "And like this insubstantial pageant faded leave not a wrack behind."

It'll take another couple of centuries, maybe a millennia. But it'll happen.

The Church played another key role, in holding on to what was left of the knowledge of the ancient world. And well done, you monks copying old books, after your predecessors burned 90% of the other old books.

The Church's roles, for good or evil, are done. And I sense I'm about to segue into a rant, and I decline to do so.

At this time.

Low stress to all.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Wow, you can't just disagree and leave? Your absence in the Church just has to part of an epic paradigm shift for all of humanity?

Zach
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ah, an ex-Roman Catholic with a chip on his shoulder.



Grow up, little boy. The world does not revolve around you.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Segue INTO?
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ah, an ex-Roman Catholic with a chip on his shoulder.



Grow up, little boy. The world does not revolve around you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.

---

On pain of receiving arguably the same ecclesial discipline as someone who has sexually abused children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.

---

Oh yes, silly me. Those individuals who were involved in the movement for the ordination of women really should be excommunicated, of course.

And female theologians who don't toe a traditional theological line as well as most communities of religious sisters really should be investigated, of course. But ordinary Catholics who don't really care one way or another can still have guarded conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Whew, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
*Apparently the Church's rule against adultery doesn't apply to the King of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.

---

On pain of receiving arguably the same ecclesial discipline as someone who has sexually abused children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.

---

Oh yes, silly me. Those individuals who were involved in the movement for the ordination of women really should be excommunicated, of course.

And female theologians who don't toe a traditional theological line as well as most communities of religious sisters really should be investigated, of course. But ordinary Catholics who don't really care one way or another can still have guarded conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Whew, then.

---

My God you really ARE an idiot. Moving the goalposts simply confirms it. You must have pulled these points out of your arse.

Simply underwhelming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
*clop clop clop*

great conversation, but let's watch out for the dead horses folks. The rights and wrongs of the Ordination of The Brighter Sex are to be discussed on the Dead Horses board.

Just a reminder.

As you were.

comet
Hellhost

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.

There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.

---

Only that's not a principled stand - it's cowardly and dishonest. What would be principled would be to try to change the structure openly from within; or to decide that the issue of women's ordained ministry was so important that it was a matter of conscience to leave any Church that would not conform to your ideas to allow it. What you describe is divisive, a cause for scandal, dishonest, and treads roughshod over several other essentially Catholic principles in order to usurp another. If that isn't proof of the need to impose Church discipline over such issues I'm Princess Mary of Teck (count your spoons).

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

---

Is there a place in the Roman Catholic Church for good-willed internal dissent?

---

Thank you for this! That's the point I was making, and now Chesterbelloc appears to be the second person to respond and then tell me to get out of the Catholic Church, when, in fact, I'm not in it.

sabine
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


Staying in the Roman Catholic Church playing at being a priest while claiming to be oppressed by the evil hierarchy is just silly in this day and age. Pretending to be Roman Catholic when you aren't is just plain dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't understand that. If you want to discern your own spiritual truth, why would you be Roman Catholic? They don't encourage the discerning of your own spiritual truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

---

Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.

Am I far off the mark?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But if the person's conscience seems to them genuinely to be forcing rejection of these Catholic essentials then the Church - though she will hold that the person's conscience is mistaken - will respect the decision to follow it. Formally, it is still apostasy, but people and situations are complex and messy and not all acts of apostasy should be treated with contempt as well as regret.

---

quote:

---

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
1. Crimes may only be punished by a fine
2. The maximum possible fine for any crime is £100
3. The punishment of Crime A is a fine of £100
4. The punishment of Crime B is a fine of £100

Q. Which crime is worse, A or B?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
most people can't get their heads around comparing OOW to any crime

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
most people can't get their heads around comparing OOW to any crime

---

That's because their heads are up their arses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I suppose, by that, you mean to imply your particular organisation doesn't have it's head up it's arse?

Quick question: is God a Protestant? Maybe He's a Catholic or a Moslem, or maybe He's none of these things, and they're all just pathetic human vanities, as bad as each other at sticking their flawed heads up their flawed arses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
You very clearly don't know me from Adam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
You very clearly don't know me from Adam.

---

Actually, I know you're a far nicer chap than Adam, and most of his friends. (I was just taking a cheap rhetorical shot at religious organisations, somewhat at your expense. Sorry.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
<<SNIP>> On the other hand, this was just PR idiocy. <<SNIP>>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Since IngoB (also Bullfrog and Marvin) have explained that there is a difference between acts that amount to a rejection of Catholic sacramental order, and acts that are morally evil, you really have no excuse for not getting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
It would appear that this conversation has pretty much run its course for constructive conversation, if that is possibile in hell.

---

quote:

---

Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared last week.
New religious rules published by the Vatican set the "sin" of the ordination of women and paedophile offences by the clergy at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests.
Benedict XVI ~ the pope who makes his medieval predecessors seem enlightened ~ has made the biggest error yet in his controversial papacy by equating women priests with the perverts who have damaged Catholicism beyond measure. One thing's for certain. I can't help thinking that if the Catholic Church had ever had the sense, courage and humanity to discard 2000 years of misogyny and allow the former, they would have suffered a lot less of the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian: Paedophilia on the other hand is weakness rather than intent <snip> Intent matters. [/QB]

---

And the intent of giving in to the weakness? Are you by any chance suggesting that paedophiles can't help it? Or that they are not responsible for their actions? That this weakness is more acceptable to the RCC than OOW because it doesn't go against its deeper seated misogynist regulations?

Sick, man.

[ 19. July 2010, 21:22: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
<<SNIP>> On the other hand, this was just PR idiocy. <<SNIP>>

---

Exactly. I tried to make this point a page or 2 or 3 ago, but was drowned out in all the shouting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
My point is this: to the outside world it matters not one jot what are the actual technicalities of canon law in these matters - appearance is all. To those not well versed in the workings of the RCC, it appears as Carolyn Hitt has described it.

---

quote:

---

Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared last week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jacobsen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian: Paedophilia on the other hand is weakness rather than intent <snip> Intent matters.

---

And the intent of giving in to the weakness? Are you by any chance suggesting that paedophiles can't help it? Or that they are not responsible for their actions? That this weakness is more acceptable to the RCC than OOW because it doesn't go against its deeper seated misogynist regulations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Anyone else want to play "Psychoanalysis over the Internet"? It's fun! Put on your fake beards and Viennese accents, and join in!

If I were a Shipmate whose profile contained a link to the blog of a female ordained Methodist pastor... and if I, the aforementioned Shipmate, thought that the current Vatican statement meant that those who had ordained me were worse than child molesters ... I could see said Shipmate taking the whole thing somewhat personally.

Two ironies occur to me:

(1) it's a backhanded compliment to the authority of the Vatican that the OP'er might feel wounded by the comparison. If their fatwas don't apply to you, why worry?

(2) if the OP'er was annoyed by the comparison with child molesters, this places her in good company with Catholic priests, who are now broadly assumed to be - by more malicious media types - all child molesters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Let's all tell our friends who have been sexually molested as children that the people who hurt them deserve equal or less punishment than the people who ordain women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by apostate630:
Folks, let's face it.

The Roman Catholic Church is imploding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneviève:
And if the Vatican's connection of the two "sins" is merely a PR blunder, it's a very interesting coincidence. I find that defense hard to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
…people in the Vatican's PR office do not get that they are being watched by enemies…They also still do not count on the basic ignorance about all things Catholic in most of the population (including supposed Catholics), and the fact that a substantial part of the population is also not friendly towards the RCC and/or simply stupid.

---

Really? Seriously?

So how do you account for this colossal ignorance, and what does it say about the essential nature of the RCC organisation?
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
Maybe the OPer is, most likely not.
Either way it takes one to know -or even suspect- one.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Tu quoque? What a crock of shit argument that is. Why don’t you engage with what he said (about the OPer), rather than guff such a flaccid parp of flatulence?

…Oh, I know why. He’s right.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FWIW:

I don't hate the RCC per se, though I greatly disagree with it on certain things, and think it's gravely mistaken about some things.

IMHO, it doesn't help discussion nor understanding (even on this board) when Ship's fierce defenders of the RCC say that those who disagree are stupid, willfully ignorant, abusers themselves (if I correctly read an implication), hate the RCC, etc. IMVHO, it doesn't help the RCC cause--it *looks* like stonewalling and/or fear.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, my reaction was the same as Seeker's; but (and this is no reflection on Seeker), I did some extra looking, even on the Vatican site, before I posted anything.

I've held back a great many fierce things I could say. So please at least hear me out in good faith. Thanks.

--ISTM that any good and fair justice system would have equal penalties for crimes of equal severity. If that doesn't happen, then something is very off.

The US legal system is really, really messed up. ISTM that the Vatican one is, too.


--Of COURSE, it looks like the RCC is equating OOW and abuse. Look at the Norme quote I put just below the OP. They're in the same class (grave delicta), and OOW seems to have a harsher sentence. Whether they mean it or not, I don't know. If they truly have no clue about how this looks to the non-RC world (and a good many RCs, I think), then they need to be educated and to hire a very very good PR firm to advise them. If they simply don't care how they're perceived...I don't know what do do with them.

--Re the discussion about the same penalty for both rape and murder: Duo, I think, commented that no one in their right mind would think that the two crimes are morally equivalent, because the rape survivor is still alive and has a chance at a life.

But abuse and rape kill part of you. They fill you with pain, weigh you down. Often, you have to fight and fight and fight to survive your post-abuse/rape life. They can drive you to suicide, to insanity, to murder, even to abuse and rape. People who've been abused and/or raped are likely (at some point, and maybe always) to want the perpetrator to endure torture, death, and the worst of hell with no refrigerium (break).

So, at least in moments of pain and the deep weariness that comes from fighting the fallout every day, many people would think they're morally equivalent...and may wish they HAD been killed.

I'm not saying that's good or right; I'm just addressing that very broad brushstroke of Duo's.

***To all victims and survivors out there: please find people to help you heal; and please, please don't give up.***

--I'm very pro OOW, and I think that the RCC's dismissal of women and criminalization of OOW is a grave delict all its own. Making it the same level of crime as abuse means they don't understand either one.

{Feeds the ghost horsie and sends it on its way.}

--My understanding is they haven't said that abusers must be reported to secular authorities, despite what someone said. This is from the Huffington Post article I linked to earlier:

quote:

---

But the new rules make no mention of the need for bishops to report clerical sex abuse to police, provide no canonical sanctions for bishops who cover up for abusers, and do not include any "zero tolerance" policy for pedophile priests as demanded by some victims.

"The first thing the church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities," said Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who filed the first public abuse lawsuit against the church in Ireland in 1995.

"That's far, far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not," he told The Associated Press in Dublin. "The church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club."

Scicluna defended the absence of any mention of the need to report abuse to police, saying all Christians were required to obey civil laws that would already demand sex crimes be reported.

The Vatican noted that bishops were reminded of this duty in a set of informal guidelines issued earlier this year and that its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which handles sex crime allegations, was working with bishops' conferences around the world to develop more "rigorous, coherent and effective" guidelines.

"If civil law requires you report, you must obey civil law," Scicluna said. But "it's not for canonical legislation to get itself involved with civil law."

---

To me, that seems to be from the "Don't Get It and/or Don't Care" department. At *best*, I think they're still caught in a Renaissance Church vs. all the secular powers battle.

If the Norme had said "all allegations and suspicions of abuse MUST be reported IMMEDIATELY to law enforcement and Child Protective Services, no ifs, ands, or buts, and you WILL face excommunication and other Church sanctions if you violate that",...then the world's response would've been far different. There would have been relief and celebration, the OOW bit would've had many people but there wouldn't be the mess there is now.

Sometimes, I wonder if they're trying to nuke the Church from the inside.


 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

any good and fair justice system would have equal penalties for crimes of equal severity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you look at the Vatican site excerpt I posted on the first page, you'll see that they're both considered the same *class* of crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I was specifically addressing the criticism that the RCC punishes both OoW and paedophilia with excommunication

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I was specifically addressing the criticism that the RCC punishes both OoW and paedophilia with excommunication

---

Which isn't true anyway. Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.

---

...which, actually, is what I said.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... which would seem to indicate...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Really? Seriously? So how do you account for this colossal ignorance, and what does it say about the essential nature of the RCC organisation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
My understanding is they haven't said that abusers must be reported to secular authorities, despite what someone said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging? Firing squad? What?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Let's all tell our friends who have been sexually molested as children that the people who hurt them deserve equal or less punishment than the people who ordain women.

---

Why should we lie to them? Perhaps you missed the point where the child molester, in addition to ecclesial penalties, has to face legal action as well? Perhaps you didn't understand the part about maximum penalties not distinguishing between different crimes that get the maximum penalty, but that doesn't mean the offenses are felt to be equally bad?

You were right before when you implied you had nothing constructive to add to the conversation.

---

Oh yes, I guess you must be talking about the bit where the Church:

* Didn't move people it found to be paedophiles into new posts;
* Excommunicated them once proven guilty;
* Didn't enthusiastically investigate those involved in the OOW;
* Didn't enthusiastically investigate any woman suspected of being a "feminist".

Oh, you are right. The twists and turns of legal niceties on paper are what matter. The beahaviour of people in applying that written law matters not one jot. Just because a group enthusiastically pursues folk involved in the OOW and gives second and third chances to proven padeophile priests doesn't inply anything at all about its attitude toward the two groups.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... which would seem to indicate...

---

And there's the rub.

People see all sorts of things they want to see. It's not so much the seeing, it's the wanting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Sigh. To repeat, the RCC does not(*) punish immoral behavior with automatic excommunication. Because that would take away the access to the sacrament of confession. It "punishes" people that have left the sacramental and/or ecclesial order of the Church with automatic excommunication, i.e., it simply makes official from the Church's side what these people have brought about by their words and deeds already (in the judgment of the Church).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
which is the crime that is so severe that it merits being cast out of the institution and deprived of the assurance of salvation, and which is the one that isn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
which is the crime that is so severe that it merits being cast out of the institution and deprived of the assurance of salvation, and which is the one that isn't?

---

According to the RCC they both are, but, again, one more fucking time, that, in and of itself, does not mean the RCC sees both crimes as equally severe. Can you see that?

The question of whether the punishments fit the crimes is entirely separate from the question of whether the RCC see those crimes as equal based on its equal punishment of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because what you're saying, in the light of my last (crossposted) post, is that it's far more severe and threatening to one's eternal salvation to go against sacramental/ecclesial order than it is to commit any number of acts of even totally depraved immorality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because what you're saying, in the light of my last (crossposted) post, is that it's far more severe and threatening to one's eternal salvation to go against sacramental/ecclesial order than it is to commit any number of acts of even totally depraved immorality.

---

Well, no. What the Church is saying is that she cannot help you avoiding eternal damnation if you refuse her ecclesial order and in particular her sacramental system. Whether you will go to hell over this is a different matter (the RCC has never declared that any particular person is in hell). It's like being seriously sick and going to the hospital, but then steadfastly disobeying the doctors and refusing all treatment. If the hospital eventually kicks you out, it has nothing to do with their judgment of the severity of your illness. It has to do with making you realize that if you want help from the hospital, it will have to be on the terms of the hospital! Using the same analogy for child abusers: just because somebody has a serious and seriously disgusting illness, perhaps parasitic worm infestation, does not mean that the hospital should kick them out. Rather it should do its job and try its best to cure them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It's like being seriously sick and going to the hospital, but then steadfastly disobeying the doctors and refusing all treatment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It's like being seriously sick and going to the hospital, but then steadfastly disobeying the doctors and refusing all treatment.

---

Seems to me that it's more like the doctors refusing to use certain treatments, and kicking out any patients that request them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Really? Seriously? So how do you account for this colossal ignorance, and what does it say about the essential nature of the RCC organisation?

---

Yeah, really, seriously. I see no particular surprise in any of this. The RCC central organization has always been decidedly human, and Italian human for the most part. <<SNIP>>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes and no. Limiting the priesthood to celibate males may be...er...limiting, but it doesn't necessarily have to mean that said priests are hopelessly out of touch. For example, our local Catholic parish priest has a married sister and school-age nieces and nephews whom he says pretty frequently, so he is aware, albeit indirectly, of something of the stresses and strains, joys and griefs of family life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I was specifically addressing the criticism that the RCC punishes both OoW and paedophilia with excommunication

---

Which isn't true anyway. Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

An institution whose dome is supported solely by men is going to have trouble communicating effectively with a world where women hold up half the sky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It would be dangerous to do so [i.e., prefer the struction of the physical body to the damnation of the soul], for there is no sign that the understanding in the Bible separates the soul from the body in such a way that allows that distinction to be maintained. After all our risen Lord bears the marks of crucifixion. What happens to the body, happens to the soul as well.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Well said Apocalypso - but WHY do people continue to listen to these ivory tower men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
The disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Well said Apocalypso - but WHY do people continue to listen to these ivory tower men?

---

Just to annoy the shitting-crikey out of you, Boogie. No other reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

An institution whose dome is supported solely by men is going to have trouble communicating effectively with a world where women hold up half the sky.

---

Indeed! Best sentence in this whole thread.

I admit that the RCs I know are liberal and more engaged in the faith as it relates to them on a parish level and on a relationship-with-God level than they are in how Rome manages to make things difficult.

One couple told me poignantly that they think the RCC will split sometime--maybe not in their lifetime, but at some point. They hope that can be avoided, but believe that many in Rome are out of touch and digging in their heels.

They also think it would take just one radical bishop to ordain a woman for the split to begin.

They feel very sad about the current state of affairs since they are life-long Catholics from families which have been Catholic for centuries. They feel there is much about their faith that is good and helpful to them personally, but the disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.

sabine

---

Because of course there aren't enough Protestant denominations already...


Why not just join one of the ones that already exist instead of trying to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
The disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.

---

First, I call bullshit on the "millions" of RCs throughout the world yearning for the OoWP to the point of defying (or even seriously contemplating defying) the Church's teaching about that. Don't suppose you can substantiate that any, eh?

Secondly, it is precisely the disconnect between the official magisterium and the perceptions of ultra-liberal (often ill-catechised, almost exclusively first-world) Catholics that "Rome" is trying to fix with clarificatory and disciplinary measures like the one we've been discussing for the last five pages. But it is precisely these off-kilter Catholics who criticise "Rome" for attempting to do so - because it isn't on their terms. Ah well.

---

quote:

---

Boogie offers us this thigh-slapper:
I have always said I love the RC Church and would convert if it weren't for the priests and the Pope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
First, I call bullshit on the "millions" of RCs throughout the world yearning for the OoWP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Boogie offers us this thigh-slapper:
I have always said I love the RC Church and would convert if it weren't for the priests and the Pope.

---

Boogie, thank you for sharing this colossally ignorant expression of love of 'Catholicism,' whatever that soft-focus word may may mean for you.

---

You are welcome
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Now you probably want to apply some discount for your statement "to the point of defying (or even seriously contemplating defying) the Church's teaching about that," but I doubt you can achieve your aim of 'fewer than millions.' Especially given the widespread defiant acts of artificial contraception among US Roman Catholics.

---

quote:

---

I deplore the breathless indignation as much as you, but this claim hardly seems hyperbolic.

---

Okay, I'll meet you halfway - I'll drop the first two syllables if I can keep the last two.... and add an "s".
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
But here's the point, Chesterbelloc, you should wish that things went so favorably that there was a schismatic wing that nucleated around female priests. At least then the Church would have someone to talk to.

As it is Roman Catholics scandalized by the hierarchy's mind-numbing screw ups just say to themselves "Fuckit" and walk away. Maybe they head back when the cousin's offspring get done at a christening, but mostly they just stop going to mass.

No chance to evangelize them, let alone catechize them, because they rightly view the the Nun's Mass as the unsatisfying pantomime that it is. They're gone. They don't 'defy.' They don't 'seriously defy.' They just vanish like smoke.

Now, if all you want to play is a numbers game, then maybe "I'm all right, Jack," cuz the off-spring of the 'white' immigrants who drift away are counter-balanced by the 'brown' ones who immigrant in.

The presumptuous Episcopalians, with all their flatulent 21st Century Mission Strategies, have been waiting with open arms since the Pedophile Scandal broke. And, they are still waiting, but unlike Moses, fuck all happens when they spread their arms welcoming wide. The disaffected RCs view the TEC Eucharistic Follies as Not Real, despite the best efforts of the Ecumenical Language Hacking of the last half-century.

The only pissed off Catholics who regularly show up in the Episcopal pews are those who love and need Jesus in the Eucharist but who can't stomach what it takes to get a divorc^h^h^h^h^h^h, I mean an annulment as a Roman Catholic.
 

---

Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
Pace Sisters and Brothers in Christ.

I think perhaps I should direct you all to 1 Corinthians 3

We all belong to Christ Jesus and perhaps we should take time to reflect upon the accusations we are throwing around all too easily.

The way I see it we Roman Catholics have got it wrong when it comes to PR. As one humble member of the Roman Catholic Church, struggling to walk the path which has been trodden by many throughout the ages I apologise for all the hurt caused by this.

It is not within the Roman Catholic tradition to ordain women to the diaconate or presbyterate. If you are a women and you get ordained, then it is not Roman Catholic ordination and therefore is understood by the Church as an act of disobedience to the Church and Apostasy and therefore a grave sin.

It also happens to be a grave sin to sexually abuse children (or anybody for that matter).

The Church does indeed see them as the same "level" of sin. Does it make them equal? Maybe not, in an emotive sense. Many would argue that ordaining a women to the priesthood is not sinful, even if it is done in disobedience to the Church and is an act of Apostasy. I would not like to debate that in writing.

Of course a certain person (more important than the Pope) once suggested that looking at a women lustfully is just as sinful as full blown adultery (St. Matthew Chapter 5)

Maybe this is the way of Hell (in that case it is appropriately titled) but I think we should try to respect each other's faith traditions a little more. The kind of debate I have scanned through on this thread has been rather depressing to read.

In Jesus and Mary.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Nice words, but ultimately worth what we paid for them. At heart I am a Roman Catholic* and if the Church tomorrow announced that (a) women are not, in fact, inferior humans fit only to pump out more Catholic spawn, but are equal in the eyes of God; (b) allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy would be automatically referred to local police authorities instead of hiding behind their bullshit lies of taking care of it internally; and (c) priestly celibacy is an archaic, unnatural requirement that they will no longer require, I'd be the first to sign up for RCIA classes.

I WANT Rome to fix their problems. I WANT to go back to church. But while they still act like they can do no wrong and that I'm a second class citizen, I'll stand outside the door and shout until I'm hoarse.

*Yes, yes, I know the knuckledraggers like Chesterbelloc and IngoB will proclaim that since I don't fall in line with every teaching of Rome I can't possibly be RC, but they are stupid and provide no actual value.

[ 20. July 2010, 23:27: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Me too

I just don't see the Roman Catholic Church changing in my lifetime. So, I'll remain more or less happy as a priest in The Episcopal Church.
 

---

Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
Erin.
My heart goes out to you and if it is OK with you I would like to keep you in my prayers.
I completely understand points (b) and (c) and to an extent I agree with you, I too do not like the culture of secrecy which does seem to be associated with our Church. At the same time it's something I haven't ever experienced in practice but I am only relatively young and inexperienced.
An objection to mandatory priestly celibacy is also something I can understand although I would like there to still be an emphasis on celibacy as a vocation which is equal to married life.
(It did occur to me last Summer when I was at a Parish mass where there were 5 deacons present that it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow deacons to celebrate the Eucharist and hear confessions in our Parishes... risky stuff there )

As for being equal in the eyes of God. You are. The Church already proclaims that everyday in the Gospel. Of course you could argue that the people of the Church do not live out that part of the Gospel but I am not one to comment. I too am guilty of treating people differently, ignoring the needs of others and not showing love to those who need it.


Do not let anybody tell you that your religious beliefs are not compatible with the Roman Catholic tradition. Jesus was described by many as a troublemaker, a heretic and a bit wishy-washy.
St Therese of Lisieux had some very untraditional approaches to faith (everybody goes to heaven, not because they have been good but because God is good) she even wrote that she desired to be a priest.
Blessed Theresa of Calcutta didn't really have "faith" per se it is reported that for many years she didn't believe in God. It wasn't until the final few months that she felt aware of his presence.

There are many theologians and priests who I think Jesus wouldn't get on with. I think Jesus would want to batter Mother Angelica as she would tell him that he's got it all wrong.
I think Jesus would be much more at home with those who the clever-clogs say are wrong, those who doubt, those who question and those whose immortal words are "I don't geddit".

Jesus doesn't expect us to get everything right, Jesus expects us to fail.
St Therese of Lisieux wrote of a ladder that she is trying to climb to reach God and like a child with weak legs she cannot even get past the first step whilst she sees all these great saints passing her by. God, seeing her struggling reaches down and carries her to the top.

All God is interested in is that we try reach him by changing our lives, by trying to follow his way.
It doesn't matter if we don't get it quite right or we don't succeed because he can fill in the gaps.


Yours in Jesus and Mary.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The Ship's Chaplain:

quote:

---

As for being equal in the eyes of God. You are. The Church already proclaims that everyday in the Gospel.

---

That and $2something will get you a tall latte at Starbucks.

And during the era of Jim Crow "separate but equal" was peachy keen. The black folk liked it that way.
 

---

Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And during the era of Jim Crow "separate but equal" was peachy keen. The black folk liked it that way.

---

“separate but equal” Is that the same as ‘Equal but Different’?

So I guess…

women like it that way?



S-E
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
This woman likes "different but equal" just about as much as African Americans liked Jim Crow. Like nil.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ship's Chaplain:
Jesus doesn't expect us to get everything right, Jesus expects us to fail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This woman likes "different but equal" just about as much as African Americans liked Jim Crow. Like nil.

---

Like, I kinda expected you would. But then, they are associated with our old friends

some things never change

S-E
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Lyda*Rose, I can accept and affirm points one through seven of the EbD credo (perhaps with a little wince at the emphasis on wrath of point four). I'm even down with point eight, up to and including the "complementary relationships."

But the sly shift from "male and female" of point one and from the "men and women" of points two through seven to the "gender" of point eight is where the wagon wheels come off.

I'd also like to know more about what they mean by "status, honour and dignity." I'm guessing that doesn't mean to refer to the "dignity of the priesthood."

And then, there is the give-away at the top of the page that it's really all about teh gayz.

[ 21. July 2010, 03:57: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.

---

Which is bullshit, of course. Molesting a child maybe doesn't get you automatically excommunicated, but it is considered a mortal sin. As anyone who bothers to learn what the Catholic Church says about mortal sins would know, if they aren't confessed, they will damn you to hell. And by 'confessed' the Church doesn't just mean 'tell it to a priest.' You must be sincerely contrite, or it will not 'take effect.' You must also take the penance — and whatever punishment you get from the legal authorities.

So while it's true that abusing a child don't get you automatically excommunicated, the punishment is in fact worse than that of a person involved in OOW. The latter will 'merely' barr you from the sacraments. The child molestor, on the other hand, is in fact damning his own soul to hell, and can only be saved if he *really* confesses the act and takes the legal punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
At heart I am a Roman Catholic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:
Since skipping Sunday Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin as well, it only complicates matters further. Not for those mainly motivated by a legalistic view of religion, of course. But for those who suspect there's more to following Jesus than RC legalism, it may be bewildering that unrepentantly skipping Sunday Mass carries the same eternal punishment in Hell as acting out pedophile urges by supposedly celibate priests.

---

quote:

---

Incoherent horseshit from opaWim:
Since skipping Sunday Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin as well, it only complicates matters further. Not for those mainly motivated by a legalistic view of religion, of course. But for those who suspect there's more to following Jesus than RC legalism, it may be bewildering that unrepentantly skipping Sunday Mass carries the same eternal punishment in Hell as acting out pedophile urges by supposedly celibate priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
At heart I am a Roman Catholic

---

It would be interesting to hear what you actually mean by that. I really have no idea. We already know how the RCC has to change so that you would grace her with your presence, but not why you would be interested anyhow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
My understanding is they haven't said that abusers must be reported to secular authorities, despite what someone said.

---

Then update your understanding already! Is it asking too much to follow links (second paragraph) showing that this is part of (particular) canon law?

---

quote:

---

What you could possibly complain about is Rome not wrestling control over the rules and regulation concerning this matter from the bishop's conferences, where it more naturally resides (the above norms are from the US bishops). This however misunderstands the place of Rome, which is not some centralist tyrannical bureaucracy micromanaging the affairs of over a billion catholics. With its 3000 staff it is rather a kind of clearing house for stuff that can't be dealt with on the local level. It pretty much functions like the Supreme Court in the judicial system of most countries, just that it deals with buck-stopping at multiple levels: administrative, doctrinal, judicial, ...

The bishops are the actual "rulers" in general. Rome does not mess with the bishops unless it really has to. So far it doesn't look like it has to, e.g., the response of the US bishops appears adequate - and the US was first hit, hence dealt with this problem first, and on a time scale that is rapid by Roman standards. I think it is also likely that Rome wants to see how the US "experimental" legislation performs before drafting any general guidelines for all countries. Correcting universal, worldwide legislation is a nightmare.

---

quote:

---

Finally, the CDF is simply not the institution for doing any of this. They are the modern Inquisition, not the regular administration. They are the guys that should move in when the shit has hit the fan. One could hence very well argue that these CDF norms are bad news as a whole. The Inquisition should not move in as a matter of course, but only where things go wrong, and this is centralizing power to Rome which really belongs to the bishops. It is a sign of weakness among the bishops and appeasement to the world that it has come to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging? Firing squad? What?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?

---

I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?

---

I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.

---

So, you would think (if you were in favour of capital punishment, which you aren’t) that the RCC should kill those who enable child abuse, and that would be proportionate to excommunication for the OoW.

Riiiiight, okay. That's smashing. Back to the real world, then.

Happily, the RCC does not punish any crime with capital punishment these days. The severest punishment it administers is excommunication. Knowing this (and I don’t mean to piss on your weird little la-la land, in which you may imagine how you’d think if you were in favour of something you aren’t, and which bizarre hypothesis in any case has no bearing whatsoever on the real world), why don’t you answer the fucking question? Here it is again, for your ease of comprehension:

Given the real-world facts that (a) the severest punishment at the disposal of the RCC is excommunication, and (b) that the RCC considers the OoW as deserving of excommunication, how would you suggest the RCC should punish paedophilia?

Clue: it's excommunication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How the RCC should handle accusations of paedophilia is different from how it should punish proven paedophilia, like how your brain works is different from how someone’s brain works whose IQ is >50.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
To the SilentAcolyte:

please consider that the human brain (yours included) is of an approximate consistency with "soft runny puppyshit" and after more than 30 minutes ouside the cranial cavity wouldn't smell any better.

OpaWim has made a valid point as regards the official RC view on "grave sin" i.e. a grab-bag of every offence from murder, sodomy and rape to Mass-missing. Maybe that's why RCs make such creatively-minded crims since there is nothing like being hung for a sheep as much as for a lamb.

And all the apologists can keep bleating on as much as they like; Msgr Scicluna has made a right royal ass of himself not to mention the rest of the RCC by his ill-advised remarks.

m

..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
The disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.

---

First, I call bullshit on the "millions" of RCs throughout the world yearning for the OoWP to the point of defying (or even seriously contemplating defying) the Church's teaching about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
(b) allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy would be automatically referred to local police authorities instead of hiding behind their bullshit lies of taking care of it internally

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
They feel very sad about the current state of affairs since they are life-long Catholics from families which have been Catholic for centuries. They feel there is much about their faith that is good and helpful to them personally, but the disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.

---

Because of course there aren't enough Protestant denominations already...


Why not just join one of the ones that already exist instead of trying to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
BEcause they aren't Protestant in their faith POV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Actually, I admire the RC friends I have mentioned here for wanting to work out internal issues rather than run away from them; standing up for their spiritual truths in the face of challenges; sticking with what they feel is good about their religion even when difficulties arise; [...], etc. etc.

---

They're not working out anything - they're just chucking out the bits that they think they know better about than the Church. Actually, they haven't even got the integrity of people like Erin, who sees the stuff she can't put up with a keeps herself out of an organisation that she would otherwise be joining.

No wonder JohhnyS think he's as much of an RC as they are - if he went along to your pals' place they might even let him concelebrate.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It is Beeswax Altar not JohnnyS. JohnnyS wouldn't want to concelebrate. Beeswax Altar would...though probably not at any of the places that would let me.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
My bad, Beeswax. But that's what you get for having JohnnyS's name in your signature, innit.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Ah, the Mystery of the Incarnate Binity: he is both Beeswax Altar and JohnnyS, and, yet, neither.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
RhetoricalPrig: you're a twisted, poisonous little twerp, aren't you? Your "I'm just angry for teh kidz!" gambit is just like the invisible man's arsehole: it stinks, and I can see straight through it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
BEcause they aren't Protestant in their faith POV.

---

Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert the teaching authority of the Pope, the ordinary magisterium and their own bishops in favour of "what God has spoken to their own hearts". Whatever else that is, it is not Roman Catholicism. How difficult can it be to understand that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
(b) allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy would be automatically referred to local police authorities instead of hiding behind their bullshit lies of taking care of it internally

---

I realize that this is something of a side issue of this thread, but I thought I'd pipe up and say that not too long ago I would have heartily concurred with Erin's condition (b), but I recently read a column by John Allen in which he noted that part of the Vatican's hesitation in adopting this policy universally is that in many places where such things as democracy and <i>habeus corpus</i> cannot be taken for granted (e.g. China, or any number of African republics), and where the Church is one of the few institutions capable of effectively resisting the government, such a policy makes a lot less sense. It could easily become a tool for eliminating those in the Church whom the government finds troublesome.

I think in the US and other Western nations, such a policy makes complete sense (and is the current policy of the Catholic Church in the US) . But I am now willing to consider that in some places it would not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry to arrive late at this bit - I dragged myself in on my knuckles.

Concerning Erin's terms of surrender: am I right in guessing that it would take nothing less than the Church ordaining women for Erin to accept that it believed women to be equal to men in the eyes of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

Roman Catholic spirituality is beautiful and true. How they deal with issues of this world, not so much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
...notorious Paul Shanley case where a man is now sitting in prison for life ... due to the ambitions of a now-failed candidate for national office....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....

---

You don't even know these people; how can you know if they are blithe or not? And how can you know what their spirituality really is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....

---

You don't even know these people; how can you know if they are blithe or not? And how can you know what their spirituality really is?

---

Well, they if they were deeply troubled by their rejection of Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar and of Holy Orders, would they really be quietly subverting the practise of that faith behind their bishops' backs by allowing laymen/laywomen to simulate the consecration of the Eucharist?

Come on, sabine - I can only believe so many implausible things before dinner...

And as for their "spirituality" (whatever you mean by that), if they do that kind of thing, their rationale is, as a matter of fact, not Roman Catholic.

---

If you want to believe you know more about my friends than I do, be my guest. I have shown what you said to one of them who has advised me that he needs no more support in the face of someone who claims to know him already.

And since you are confusing faith with practice when it comes to spirituality, I'm not going to create a tangent. They are not the same thing, but I suspect you haven't figured that out yet.

As for believing only so many implausible things before dinner....there is no way I can make you believe me on anything I have reported here. I leave you to your misunderstanding of who my friends are and what they believe.

sabine
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
And since you are confusing faith with practice when it comes to spirituality, I'm not going to create a tangent. They are not the same thing, but I suspect you haven't figured that out yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.

---

Acknowledging our failures in practice, I still have to say: huh???????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?

---

I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.

---

So, you would think (if you were in favour of capital punishment, which you aren’t) that the RCC should kill those who enable child abuse, and that would be proportionate to excommunication for the OoW.

Riiiiight, okay. That's smashing. Back to the real world, then.

Happily, the RCC does not punish any crime with capital punishment these days. The severest punishment it administers is excommunication. Knowing this (and I don’t mean to piss on your weird little la-la land, in which you may imagine how you’d think if you were in favour of something you aren’t, and which bizarre hypothesis in any case has no bearing whatsoever on the real world), why don’t you answer the fucking question? Here it is again, for your ease of comprehension:

Given the real-world facts that (a) the severest punishment at the disposal of the RCC is excommunication, and (b) that the RCC considers the OoW as deserving of excommunication, how would you suggest the RCC should punish paedophilia?

Clue: it's excommunication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.

---

Acknowledging our failures in practice, I still have to say: huh???????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
If OoW were wrong, it would still be far, far less wrong than abuse and enabling abusers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
If OoW were wrong, it would still be far, far less wrong than abuse and enabling abusers.

---

<takes a deep breath and counts to ten>

Okay.

I have my own personal ideas about what sort of punishment is appropriate for child sex abusers (and they’re considerably more severe than yours, as it happens). All that, however, is beside the frigging point, which you are still failing to get. Unbelievably.

The criticism was made at the start of this thread that, by punishing it similarly, the RCC is effectively treating the OoW as though it is as serious as paedophilia. This is an utterly fallacious analysis, for the reasons that have been demonstrated ad fuckeam on this thread. How you and I would personally like to see the RCC treat paedophilia is entirely beside the fucking fuckity fuckfucked point. The severest punishment it may mete is excommunication, and that counts for paedophilia as well as the OoW, apostasy, stealing paperclips, and everything. The severest punishment they may exact for paedophilia is therefore not hanging, nor chemical castration, nor your preferred method, outlined above. It is excommunication.

It is entirely reasonable that excommunication also happens to be the punishment for apostasy and the OoW, because the punishment has nothing to do with how the RCC views the relative severity of those different crimes. (Only if the punishments were different, might it, since they would then be variously less than the severest possible).

I should warn you that if you hereby reply to the effect that in your opinion the RCC should instead punish paedophilia by excommunication and reporting it immediately to the authorities, I shall arise from my desk, drive to my neighbour’s farm, steal his goat and sacrifice it forthwith on an altar to the god of fucking utter cluelessness.

Don’t make me do it.

---

Dear Yorick:

Your counting ability is impressive. If 10 is all you can manage, why not branch out and learn to count to 10 in other languages? Then you could pile them all together and, effectively, count to...say...100. Much more calming than 10.

I see what you're saying. That's never been the issue. But, to quote the last line of the movie "Women In Love", "I disagree".

As to your plot against your neighbor and his poor goat: the god of cluelessness just wouldn't get it, I would call PETA on you, and you'd go to jail for theft and cruelty to animals. If I were you, I'd be most worried about that second consequence.

Now, I believe there's a lovely, quiet little resort in the countryside, where you can learn underwater basket-weaving, talk about your anger issues, and be graced with the fetching jackets that the place is known for.

Do write to us, now and then. Crayon is perfectly acceptable.

PS Count von Count from "Sesame Street" says "hi". He'll come visit you at the resort.

PPS Does the fervent desire to sacrifice to a god mean you've become a Deist?

PPPS If the resort staff permits it, I'll send you some mala beads. There are 108 of them. Perhaps you could manage to count to 9 twelve times?

Cordially, etc. etc.

[ 22. July 2010, 09:04: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Roughly: Show me how you pray, and I'll show you what you believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you don't believe the liturgy of the Roman Catholic or Coptic Church, why say it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you don't believe the liturgy of the Roman Catholic or Coptic Church, why say it?

Those words have meaning and purpose.

If you believe that everyday actions can be prayers, are you in the habit of doing things you don't believe as prayer to God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, we can all say the same liturgy with it meaning something very different to each of us...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
and you have a habit of saying prayers that you don't really believe.....

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabine:
Oh nevermind. This is going nowhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabine:
Oh nevermind. This is going nowhere.

---

Where would you want it to go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But don't you see, the fact that you attend all of those services, and the way you behave at them, says something of you that is not true of me, as can be gleaned from the fact that I don't do those things. I think you are interpreting "lex orendi" too narrowly. Think of it as your entire religious experience, not just how you behave at one particular time in one particular setting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
I think you make a very good point that whenever one visits a religious service outside one's religion, that is part of an over-all or entire "religious" (organized religion, that is) experience. That's what I had in mind when I mentioned how experiences outside my own religion may have meaning for me that they don't have for the people whose religious service I am attending as a guest.

However, since faith is something that is in the heart, mind, and soul--and only God can see the faith in there--I'm not sure if one's entire religious experience can provide outside observers with more than just an impression of a person's faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And I think that there is a pretty strong relationship between what we think and what we do.

---

I couldn't agree more.



Except, of course, when we impose the possibility of a lessor punishment on a paedophile than those doing feminist thinking in the church. Clearly, we mean what we say in that instance, more than what we do. Obviously.

[ 23. July 2010, 10:07: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

But some of what we believe on the inside is going to come out on the outside, surely. Human beings are not just thinkers; like all animals we are also doers. And I think that there is a pretty strong relationship between what we think and what we do

---

Yes, I believe this, as well. But I have not said that there is never a relationship between what we think and what we do, just that no one can know in detail what that relationship is.

So, we may be close in mind here, maybe/maybe not.... without, of course, knowing what you are thinking at this moment

Unfortunately, as soon as people look at behavior and start pronouncing others as not-of-the-faith, the slope gets slippery because that kind of pronouncement requires mind reading. Some people may not be of the faith in the way we want them to be or the way the leaders of the religion want them to be or the way it's always been done, but surely and especially via computer, we can't make absolute judgments about the inner life of others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

get together and have laymen and women taking on the roles excusively reserved for clerics, they are deliberately doing what the Church not only prohibits but which strikes against the very root of the Church's teaching in these central issues (the Mass and Holy Order).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:


But that doesn't mean that in their inner lives, they aren't believers in and sustained by other teachings of the Church. Their Catholic identity is obviously a bit edgy and not exactly like others, but it is one reason they would rather work to change-from-within through a kind of religious activism.

This will, inevitably make people uncomfortable and angry. All activism does. And since there are already people who are uncomfortable and angry with the official teachings of the RCC, my friends get it from both sides. They're used to it. And they hope for the day when the RCC is a more open and inclusive institution.

So, given that one of them has already indicated that he doesn't feel the need for me to continue to defend them on a discussion board, I will move on to other things.

Peace.

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Start saying? They've always said that. The RCC used to kill people for being heretics. You act like the Church betrayed these poor people by suddenly adopting a new attitude of intolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel for them sabine, it must be a hard place for them.

---

quote:

---

As soon as institutions start saying 'take us as we are or leave, nothing is going to change here' they begin to ossify, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
get together and have laymen and women taking on the roles excusively reserved for clerics, they are deliberately doing what the Church not only prohibits but which strikes against the very root of the Church's teaching in these central issues (the Mass and Holy Order).

---

We agree on this. But that doesn't mean that in their inner lives, they aren't believers in and sustained by other teachings of the Church. Their Catholic identity is obviously a bit edgy and not exactly like others, but it is one reason they would rather work to change-from-within through a kind of religious activism.
This will, inevitably make people uncomfortable and angry. All activism does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:
The obnoxious kind of (neo-)con-apologist seen so frequently in virtual worlds like the Ship (but thankfully hardly ever in a real parish) ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
However, since faith is something that is in the heart, mind, and soul......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
That's why I am so confused about the RCC thing. It appears on paper to be a set of rules and dogma that come down from leaders. OK, fine--all religions and organizations need some sort of description.

But our interior lives are not lived on paper. And since there is no outward way to ascertain one's inward status with God, why do we rely on what is on paper as a determining factor? And then, why do we judge--based on insufficient evidence--whether or not another is a good enough member of his faith?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's not the "edgy activism" that irks me - it's the smug "We know better than the Church we claim membership of so we'll quietly do our own thing".

---

Chesterbelloc, where do you get that these people are doing anything? From what sabine said, I thought they believe women should be ordained but haven't acted on their beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
She said that some of them read the gospel and said the eucharistic prayer. That's activism. I share his feelings about activism. It is usually just more annoying than edgy.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Oh, I see it now, back on page 3. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re RCs who choose what they follow, and non-RC who feel RC in their hearts:

To the folks who condemn them--

Many, many people think that there's far more to the RCC than the pope, the Vatican, and the hierarchy, more than many of the rules.

They feel strongly, deeply that there's Something there.

They may verbalize it as Erin did, that "Catholic spirituality is beautiful"; they may talk about following Jesus, the historical connection, the liturgy, the sense of community, the comfort of a physical service (kneeling, etc.) when mind and emotions and whatever else just aren't in it; they may not be able to verbalize it at all, let alone hold their own in a theological conversation.

But that doesn't mean that what they believe and experience isn't real.

If you kicked out all the RC who feel such, you'd lose a good chunk of the Church. If you went back in time to do it, you'd probably lose many of the RCC saints, who often didn't fit in with the Church of their day.

If the RCC took the (admittedly scary!) steps of allowing women into the priesthood and diaconate; accepting LGBT folks; taking a no-nonsense, proactive, "the civil authorities are not our enemies", tough love approach to abuse of children and other vulnerable folks; and stopped giving the world the impression that sex is, in and of itself, somehow lesser than spirituality,...

then you'd have so many people flooding into the Church that you could reopen all the closed churches, revitalize the whole RCC, and never worry about the dwindling number of priests again.

Sometimes, rules and structures can be a cage; and sometimes, they can be a marvelous structure of bones and muscles and nerves that helps you to move and live.

A lot of people, including many faithful Catholics, feel like there's a heart and a marvelous structure trapped inside that cage. Maybe they join or stay in the Church, try to get close enough to touch that Something, and hang around and wait, as Catholics have done over the millenia. Maybe they move on to another denomination or religion, keep their own kind of spirituality, or shift into agnosticism or atheism.

But they keep looking back at that Heart.

Don't try to limit what God is doing with these people.

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:
The obnoxious kind of (neo-)con-apologist seen so frequently in virtual worlds like the Ship (but thankfully hardly ever in a real parish) ...

---

You rang?

---

Admitting it is the first step. There's a 12-Step meeting right down the hall. Free coffee & doughnuts.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by Golden Key:
Many, many people think that there's far more to the RCC than the pope, the Vatican, and the hierarchy, more than many of the rules.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Golden Key:
They may verbalize it as Erin did, that "Catholic spirituality is beautiful"; they may talk about following Jesus, the historical connection, the liturgy, the sense of community, the comfort of a physical service (kneeling, etc.) when mind and emotions and whatever else just aren't in it; they may not be able to verbalize it at all, let alone hold their own in a theological conversation.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Golden Key:
If you kicked out all the RC who feel such, you'd lose a good chunk of the Church. If you went back in time to do it, you'd probably lose many of the RCC saints, who often didn't fit in with the Church of their day.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Golden Key:
If the RCC took the (admittedly scary!) steps of allowing women into the priesthood and diaconate; accepting LGBT folks; taking a no-nonsense, proactive, "the civil authorities are not our enemies", tough love approach to abuse of children and other vulnerable folks; and stopped giving the world the impression that sex is, in and of itself, somehow lesser than spirituality,...

then you'd have so many people flooding into the Church that you could reopen all the closed churches, revitalize the whole RCC, and never worry about the dwindling number of priests again.

---

quote:

---

People embracing a progressive version of any form of Christianity usually say something about not wanting to leave their brain at the door. The idea is that liberal theology doesn't require you leave your brain at the door.

I call bullshit. It most certainly does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

What other churches don't have is the Pope and the Magisterium.

---

Lucky, lucky them.

 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
As much as I'd like to believe that millions would flock to the RC church if their views were closer to those expressed here (and my own), I doubt that would happen.

I can see a minority huffing and puffing. Some would leave.

Some may rejoin or come from other churches.

Otherwise, I daresay it would take a long time for the RC church to be decontaminated*.

The openness towards other religions and the radical change of belief regarding the Jewish religion post Vatican II showed that there can be counter-currents to any change, in any case.

*an emotive word I know, but I was talking from the point of view of those who see some teachings within the RC church to be dodgy.
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Admitting it is the first step. There's a 12-Step meeting right down the hall. Free coffee & doughnuts.

---

Don't get your hopes up too high.
Most types of addicts have at least a beginning of awareness that their addiction (f.i. to alcohol, drugs, gambling, money-making, violence, sex) may be an obstacle to their salvation.
Religious addicts are usually deeply convinced that their addiction is their salvation.
Even if you can reliably make the distinction between addiction to religion and voluntary commitment to religion/God, (and how would you even begin to do that where it concerns an Internet persona) it will still be next to impossible to get through to them.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I think I'd rather have RadWhig's unrestrained bile thanks, opawim. It's more honest and more diverting.
 

---

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re RCs who choose what they follow, and non-RC who feel RC in their hearts:

To the folks who condemn them--

Many, many people think that there's far more to the RCC than the pope, the Vatican, and the hierarchy, more than many of the rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

People embracing a progressive version of any form of Christianity usually say something about not wanting to leave their brain at the door. The idea is that liberal theology doesn't require you leave your brain at the door.

I call bullshit. It most certainly does.

---

Did you mean to say, Bee, that being a progressive Christian doesn't necessarily imply one is more intelligent or thoughtful?

Or are you saying that you more intelligent and thoughtful than all liberal Christians?

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


I call bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:


God speaks to people in different ways. Accept that, and the angst over other people's practices goes down.

sabine

---

 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabine:
God speaks to people in different ways. Accept that, and the angst over other people's practices goes down.

---

quote:

---

Churches and religions are human constructions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
By their fruits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabine:
God speaks to people in different ways. Accept that, and the angst over other people's practices goes down.

---

Then how do you know it's God, and not an-oversized-human-ego-projecting-itself-onto-the-universe, per

quote:

---

Churches and religions are human constructions.

---

?

Unless God is merely a human construction...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think I'd rather have RadWhig's unrestrained bile thanks, opawim. It's more honest and more diverting.

---

Obviously.
RadicalWhig dishes out harsh judgments on what you are in his perception. This being Hell he has the possibility to do so, but in the process he allows you ample leeway to not take him seriously or imagine yourself being victimized for your apparent vocation to force your personal version of RCism down the throats of your fellow RCs and the rest of the world.

You are perfectly free to prefer open aggression to an open invitation to look in the mirror, but to me any kind of aggression towards obnoxious (neo-)con apologists is a complete waste of keystrokes. They are a lot less relevant to me, and I suspect to most of the other RCs on the Ship, than they imagine, but of course they are perfectly free to pleasure themselves by imagining they are worthy of aggression.

By the way, do not expect me to be disappointed at all if I don't get through to you. That is all par for the course. It's really silly of me to waste my time on lost causes
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabine:
God speaks to people in different ways. Accept that, and the angst over other people's practices goes down.

---

Then how do you know it's God, and not an-oversized-human-ego-projecting-itself-onto-the-universe, per

quote:

---

Churches and religions are human constructions.

---

?

Unless God is merely a human construction...

---

Yep. You are starting to see the bullshit behind the cliches as well. Anger lead me out of fundamentalism. Boredom and frustration lead me back towards the center.

---

Contrary to some impressions, I'm not a fundamentalist, and indeed have never been one (raised mainline protestant, PCUSA, fairly recently UMC.)

But I see a real problem in a church that doesn't have the slightest fucking clue what it's actually doing. So we make a mystery of it all, which is really a philosophical shell game. WE keep God hidden under several different categories (imminent, transcendent, mysterious, immediate, calls us, waits for us, etc.) and when one gets exposed you just shift to another definition...it gets really tiresome after a while. I don't really think much of eternal damnation but I'll be damned if I turn into a sloppy universalist that just wants to fucking bless everything in sight when my ethical sense knows damned well that there's plenty in the world not worth blessing. If it was really all that good, then I suppose we wouldn't need to fuss so much about social justice, now, would we? It'd be taken care of already. So I wish people would fucking quit pretending that they think everyone and every thing is a gift of God when they know damned well in their hearts that this isn't what they really feel. If it were the case, this board would not be necessary.

Sometimes I think I'd just call myself a radical. It means just about the same thing as fundamentalist, but the word hasn't been covered by quite as much shit.

And no, you don't have to be a homophobic gun-toting pro-life Nazi to think the Church should have some standards of behavior and ethics. Read some fucking Bonhoeffer and tell me again that every Christian who says that discipleship means more than being nice is an evil neo-imperialist twat!

ETA: Some parts of the above are obviously not directed at anyone in particular, though anyone can feel free to take them as they feel offended or convicted.

[ 24. July 2010, 15:13: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I knew you weren't a fundamentalist. I was giving my own testimony.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I knew you weren't a fundamentalist. I was giving my own testimony.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
By their fruits.

---

Great. Next time I see a highly-effective secular humanist charity, I'll just tell them that they're really Christians in disguise, because the Bible says so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
By their fruits.

---

Great. Next time I see a highly-effective secular humanist charity, I'll just tell them that they're really Christians in disguise, because the Bible says so.

---

You asked: Then how do you know it's God, and not an-oversized-human-ego-projecting-itself-onto-the-universe . . .

How likely is a "highly-effective secular humanist charity" to attempt discernment over the spiritual source of their inspiration?

Your experience may be different, but where I live, it's typically Christians who wonder whether the still small voice they're listening to is really from God.

And "fruits" is how they tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think I'd rather have RadWhig's unrestrained bile thanks, opawim. It's more honest and more diverting.

---

Obviously.
RadicalWhig dishes out harsh judgments on what you are in his perception. This being Hell he has the possibility to do so, but in the process he allows you ample leeway to not take him seriously or imagine yourself being victimized for your apparent vocation to force your personal version of RCism down the throats of your fellow RCs and the rest of the world.

You are perfectly free to prefer open aggression to an open invitation to look in the mirror, but to me any kind of aggression towards obnoxious (neo-)con apologists is a complete waste of keystrokes. They are a lot less relevant to me, and I suspect to most of the other RCs on the Ship, than they imagine, but of course they are perfectly free to pleasure themselves by imagining they are worthy of aggression.

By the way, do not expect me to be disappointed at all if I don't get through to you. That is all par for the course. It's really silly of me to waste my time on lost causes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
By their fruits.

---

Great. Next time I see a highly-effective secular humanist charity, I'll just tell them that they're really Christians in disguise, because the Bible says so.

---

You asked: Then how do you know it's God, and not an-oversized-human-ego-projecting-itself-onto-the-universe . . .

How likely is a "highly-effective secular humanist charity" to attempt discernment over the spiritual source of their inspiration?

Your experience may be different, but where I live, it's typically Christians who wonder whether the still small voice they're listening to is really from God.

And "fruits" is how they tell.

---

So it's all up to the individual, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
By their fruits.

---

Great. Next time I see a highly-effective secular humanist charity, I'll just tell them that they're really Christians in disguise, because the Bible says so.

---

You asked: Then how do you know it's God, and not an-oversized-human-ego-projecting-itself-onto-the-universe . . .

How likely is a "highly-effective secular humanist charity" to attempt discernment over the spiritual source of their inspiration?

Your experience may be different, but where I live, it's typically Christians who wonder whether the still small voice they're listening to is really from God.

And "fruits" is how they tell.

---

So it's all up to the individual, then.

---

Who, other than God, do you think should decide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
By consensus or majority vote?

---

I lean toward consensus. I'm also a big fan of voluntarism. People should be free to "vote with their feet."
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
That sounds about right.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What community of believers?

the local church

the diocese/synod/conference

the national church

the worldwide body of a particular church

all Christians

Do the saints of the past get a vote?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What community of believers?

the local church

the diocese/synod/conference

the national church

the worldwide body of a particular church

all Christians

Do the saints of the past get a vote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'll be damned if I turn into a sloppy universalist that just wants to fucking bless everything in sight when my ethical sense knows damned well that there's plenty in the world not worth blessing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'll be damned if I turn into a sloppy universalist that just wants to fucking bless everything in sight when my ethical sense knows damned well that there's plenty in the world not worth blessing.

---

Odd that. My reading of Christianity is that it's the things that aren't worth blessing that most need to be blessed. Christ didn't come to reward the Holy, He came to redeem the lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It is the belief among a fringe movement of the religious right that the US Constitution is divinely inspired. Most of them are LDS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
We are the lost until we are found. Once found, I think it'd be ridiculous to continue pretending that we are lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
What is this "lost and found" stuff? Is that one of those deep spirichul alexgorys?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Is there any other organization that is so completely tone deaf? Seriously. As long as you voluntarily remain with the RCC, I'll be honest and say I don't have much sympathy for you.

---

quote:

---

"The Pope has done explicitly a catechism about the many women in the service of the Gospel who were disciples of Jesus and helped him in his life," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Is this a separate work? Where is it? What does it say? And does it show even more tone-deafness in carefully separating the interactions of men with Jesus from the interactions of women with Jesus?

---

quote:

---

As we can see, the praise refers to women in the course of the Church's history and was expressed on behalf of the entire Ecclesial Community. Let us also join in this appreciation, thanking the Lord because he leads his Church, generation after generation, availing himself equally of men and women who are able to make their faith and Baptism fruitful for the good of the entire Ecclesial Body and for the greater glory of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I would be painfully surprised and even shocked to discover that women cannot enter its priesthood. In fact, I would feel feel tricked and betrayed on behalf of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

I would be painfully surprised and even shocked to discover that women cannot enter its priesthood. In fact, I would feel feel tricked and betrayed on behalf of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I would be painfully surprised and even shocked to discover that women cannot enter its priesthood. In fact, I would feel feel tricked and betrayed on behalf of women.

---

Of course you would. Rotting equines are that way...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Rotting equines are that way...

---

Yes. I, too, sense the hovering aura of the Hellhosts...

---

We've been hovering for a while. But so far, most people seem able to avoid the glue factory well enough that we haven't had to dole out specific warnings.

Let's keep it that way .
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
If Benedict sincerely believes that:

quote:

---

The Lord wants these Gospel witnesses, these figures who have made a contribution so that faith in him would grow, to be known, and their memory kept alive in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

I would be painfully surprised and even shocked to discover that women cannot enter its priesthood. In fact, I would feel feel tricked and betrayed on behalf of women.

---

And the complete absence of female clergy isn't a clue to intending members?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:

I consider myself fortunate that i come form a tradition where my clitoris was not amputated before puberty but that does not mean that OoW is not ipso facto non-existent priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
..But if you really want to know what really gets me going, what fills me with pure,cold rage - it is the denial of education to girls and women in places like Afghanistan, honour killings, rape as warfare, genital mutilation. I could continue. They are the hard targets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Congratulations, you win the moron award.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
OK, let's look at the names listed: Peter, his brother Andrew, James the older, John, Thomas, Matthew, Philip, Bartholomew, James the younger, Simon, Judas Thaddeus, Judas Iscariot, Matthias and Paul.

Does this particular list of names ring any bells? Can anyone think of a reason why these particular figures might have been chosen? Anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
...This is clearly the criterion according which they were chosen for inclusion. I really don't see why people should get into a lather about the Pope writing a book about those identified as Apostles in the Bible and not including any women...

For some reason Gort thinks I'm trying to make some point about the ordination of women, which, frankly, didn't even cross my mind.

---

quote:

---

As we can see, the praise refers to women in the course of the Church's history and was expressed on behalf of the entire Ecclesial Community. Let us also join in this appreciation, thanking the Lord because he leads his Church, generation after generation, availing himself equally of men and women who are able to make their faith and Baptism fruitful for the good of the entire Ecclesial Body and for the greater glory of God.

---

 

---

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
My apologies, FCB, just ignore me. Speak to those who can hear you. I'll shut up now.
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
On the Philip and Bartholomew question -- I have never heard that they were supposed to be the same person: you may be thinking of Batholomew and Nathanael.

---

My bad. I should have checked before posting.

If there were only 12 "Friends of Jesus", I would not have objected. It's the 2 extras that I find odd, for reasons which Gort expresses perfectly.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
It's the 2 extras that I find odd, for reasons which Gort expresses perfectly.

---

Fair enough, though Paul and Mathias are identified as "apostles" in the New Testament.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
And there's a big difference between a hardcover book published for children and an obscure epistle on the Vatican website.

If the Pope has any decent PR advisers (and if they by any chance are reading the Ship , may I suggest that they promptly produce a nice parallel book extolling all of those wonderful women who meant so much to Jesus.

Not to mention the women such as Hildegard of Bingen, who managed to overcome her sex and society and be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. And left behind a lot of amazing music and medical knowledge to boot.

Better yet would be a revised version of the original book, expanded to include the women, with a forward by Pope Benny explaining that it was an inexcusable oversight that the first edition didn't include any women, since women have contributed so much to the church, blah, blah, blah.

But that's probably asking too much.

~~~

A few days ago, I watched the new season opener of MadMen. Having grown up in that era and having first-hand experience of being the oddball woman in a man's work world, it as all too real. (I'm even old enough that I remember the "John - Marsha" thing.)

Sadly, when dealing with the public and the laity, the Vatican is still living back in the '50s and early '60s. And has yet to adjust to the continuing schizoid aftereffects of VatII.

I had hoped that Benedict would use his love and understanding of the liturgy combined with what I thought was a rational intelligence to begin bringing the two pendulums of VatII overenthusiasm and the reactionary Trad movement into some sort of approach to equilibrium, but I have been repeatedly astounded at what has already, on this thread, been identified as his tone deafness.

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I really don't see why people should get into a lather about the Pope writing a book about those identified as Apostles in the Bible and not including any women.

---

quote:

---

Mary Magdalene might have been an ingenious choice for inclusion (since some early Christian writers referred to her as the "apostle to the apostles"), but I don't really expect Popes (or those who assemble books out of their writings) to be ingenious.

---

If he meant the words, quoted on the thread, about God having equal purposes for men and women, then it would only require common sense, not ingenuity, to make sure women were included. And since it's called "Friends of Jesus", not "The Apostles", even a very conservative reading of Scripture would allow his mom, Mary Magdalene, maybe his mom's cousin Elizabeth, Joanna and the other women mentioned. Plus the Samaritan woman at the well, maybe the woman who washed his feet (if thought to be separate from Mary Magdalene), etc.

As to Mary Magdalene being "Apostle to the Apostles"...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
As to Mary Magdalene being "Apostle to the Apostles"...

---

Gorgeous icon! And she actually looks like she might be from the Middle East rather than Sweden.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Reminds me of this picture
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, very much like it!
 

---

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Not to mention the women such as Hildegard of Bingen, who managed to overcome her sex and society and be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.

---

quote:

---

And left behind a lot of amazing music and medical knowledge to boot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
As to Mary Magdalene being "Apostle to the Apostles"...

---

Gorgeous icon! And she actually looks like she might be from the Middle East rather than Sweden.

---

• All the apostles are men.
• The Pope says that the apostles are "friends of Jesus."
• Therefore the Pope thinks that only men are friends of Jesus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is another aspect to all of this, which I have experienced both directly in my own family and also more indirectly, and that is the apparent inability of at least some celibate priests to perceive the gravoty of the crime of child sex abuse. I would suspect that this inability stems largely from the fact that they are not parents themselves and, unless this is adequately addressed, whatever is (mis)pronounced from the Vatican ain't gonna change the situation on the ground much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Not to mention the women such as Hildegard of Bingen, who managed to overcome her sex and society and be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.

---

Really?

quote:

---

And left behind a lot of amazing music and medical knowledge to boot.

---

Amazing indeed.
Some of it so amazing that it successfully spoiled her chances of ever being declared Doctor of the Church, while at the same time making her a pillar of New-Age-ism and the mother of a bewilderingly successful brand of quackery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
There is another aspect to all of this, which I have experienced both directly in my own family and also more indirectly, and that is the apparent inability of at least some celibate priests to perceive the gravoty of the crime of child sex abuse. I would suspect that this inability stems largely from the fact that they are not parents themselves and, unless this is adequately addressed, whatever is (mis)pronounced from the Vatican ain't gonna change the situation on the ground much.

---

I'm not a parent either, but I like to think I have a good perception of the gravity of child abuse. To say that only parents can have such a perception is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
There are three female Doctors of the Church all declared as such in the 20th Century - St Teresa of Avila, St Catherine of Siena; great writers, reformers, theologians and mystics both and St Therese of Lisieux.

Three towering figures and one rather sentimental even mawkish one, (which does not say much for the taste and discernment of Pope John Paul II, who named her as Doctor of the Church.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Of course the best is Donatello's version. She not only not Swedish, she's not even "hot."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
There are three female Doctors of the Church all declared as such in the 20th Century - St Teresa of Avila, St Catherine of Siena; great writers, reformers, theologians and mystics both and St Therese of Lisieux.

Three towering figures and one rather sentimental even mawkish one, (which does not say much for the taste and discernment of Pope John Paul II, who named her as Doctor of the Church.)

---

You may have lost count there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Three towering figures and one rather sentimental even mawkish one, (which does not say much for the taste and discernment of Pope John Paul II, who named her as Doctor of the Church.)

---

You may have lost count there.

---

Count it up with me. That would be Hildegard, Teresa and Catherine. 1,2,3.

If you are trying to score points, at least try to get your facts right. That was too easy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by opaWim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
There are three female Doctors of the Church all declared as such in the 20th Century - St Teresa of Avila, St Catherine of Siena; great writers, reformers, theologians and mystics both and St Therese of Lisieux.

Three towering figures and one rather sentimental even mawkish one, (which does not say much for the taste and discernment of Pope John Paul II, who named her as Doctor of the Church.)

---

You may have lost count there.

---

Count it up with me. That would be Hildegard, Teresa and Catherine. 1,2,3.

If you are trying to score points, at least try to get your facts right. That was too easy.

---