From here:
Get married, get excommunicated. The harshest punishment available to the church. For getting married. To an adult woman.
Molest a little boy, get promoted.
How does anybody take these people seriously any more?
There’s a commandment against adultery.
Cite that the RCC has a policy of promoting child molesters?
You must be joking. I thought this was the pit. You’re jumping all over a little bit of hyperbole in the pit? Were you potty trained at gunpoint?
How about considering the fact that (at least until possibly recently), there was no policy against promoting child molesters.
Actually, I don’t know where people get the idea that you don’t have to provide cites just because it’s the Pit. You make a claim, you back it up.
You’re way off. The issue here isn’t marriage, it’s that he ordained men to be bishops without the consent of the Holy See. Doing that, or having that done, is an automatic excommunication – it’s the same thing that happened to Abp. Lefebvre back in the 80s when he decided to ordain bishops without consent.
Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law:
It doesn’t work that way. You said, “Molest a little boy, get promoted.” I asked for a cite. Put up or shut up.
Not to argue, but I’d love a background cite on this. I can easily believe the article from the OP having misconstrued why the excommunication, but I’d like to see the background story.
By the way, I thought that (a) bishops had the prerogative to supersede the clerical-celibacy clause in individual cases for good reason, and (b) the Eastern Rites at least had the right to choose bishops without specific sign-off by the Holy See. But I have no actual facts or cites supporting those two assertions – would you be willing to clarify?
As long as the RCC sticks to treating its own people badly, I’m staying out of the fray. It only gets me riled when they want to force their rules on everybody else.
Hyperbole is not a factual claim, and that statement was clearly hyperbole.
With (a), dispensation from that is reserved to the Holy See.
Canon 1042:
And Can. 1047 §2:
With regard to (b), I know the Eastern Churches have their own codes of canon law. I’m pretty sure that they also require approval from the Holy See for consecration of bishops, but don’t have any cites on the matter right now. At any rate, that point is moot because the bishop mentioned in the OP is of the Latin rite.
You know, I see the point of the OP, but I think you’re off the real point a bit.
The church didn’t excom them for getting married (although they may have eventually), the point here is that everyone involved did something they knew was against the rules. This guy violated the Church’s law knowingly, why wouldn’t he be punished for it? If I were a young Catholic girl and I went out and, I don’t know, I had premarital sex, then confessed- there would be a punishment for me. It’s not a big surprise. (Now, I don’t necessarily agree with the Church’s rules, but the rules are there and most Catholics know what’s what).
Perhaps they were making an example of this guy, but he did break the rules.
Cite that anybody said they did in this thread?
The OP only said “Molest a little boy, get promoted.” Which is supported by this article:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/051802_quincy_priest.htm
among several other I could find with mimimal Google searching.
My bad, I dared to make a sarcastic statement in the pit. I bow before your eminent authority and wisdom on the matter of cites. I cannot provide the cite you request (I would note, however, that you asked for a cite of something I did not say, specifically that promoting chomos was a policy of the church. If I wanted to get as technically nitpicky as you are I could provide a cite for one person who was promoted after molesting a child, which I’m sure would be easy to find, and would have provided a cite for what I said, although not technically a cite for what you asked for, even though it’s not what I said. But to do so would be to miss the point, that being that the statement was hyperbole, and therefore a cite is not needed.)
I wish to join you in your quest to keep the pit free from unsubstantiated hyperbole. Below is a list of pit threads which contain hyperbole that is not backed up by sworn affidavits. I trust you will take the appropriate action. Also, if any openings on your team of hyperbole-fighting superheroes become available, I hope you will consider me, as I am now, thanks to you, dedicated solely to the destruction of all hyperbole in the pit.
The substantive difference that I see is that the power the archbishop has to ordain was abused, in flagrant violation of current policy. As YBeayf points out, ordination has to be approved by the Holy See. The excommunication would occur regardless of the reason the person was not approved, not just those who are married. This is different from someone who commits a personal sin (or a crime, for that matter), where perhaps his social standing as a priest is taken advantage of, but not his actual priestly powers.
Hence the title of my thread, “Catholic priorities.” Y’see, they make an extreme, inflexible rule regarding priests marrying adult women, but have no extreme, inflexible rule regarding priests molesting little boys. (At least until recently.) Priorities. Since the 1100s, priests not marrying has been a priority. The safety of little boys has not. They are being pitted not for enforcing their own rules, but because their rules are so fucked up.
No problem, just don’t let it happen again.
No cite, I see. So you pulled that statement out of your ass? Thought so.
I doubt a known pedophile would be approved for ordination, either.
Nor would he be removed after ordination, to judge from history.
Right, which they should perhaps be…or at least not allowed to do parish work of any kind.
The difference being that if a married person is ordained, the ordination was never legitimate to begin with.
Pedophila, on the other hand, is a specific act, not an ongoing state of being, which has no bearing on whether or not the person was validly ordained.
I imagine what these kinds of excommuncations are about is the flagrant disobedience towards the Holy See.