# Catholic priorities **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 23, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579 "2006-10-23T15:37:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/1 "2006-10-23T15:37:13Z")
From [here:](http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/26/vatican.bishop/index.html) > [@CNN](#): > > A Zambian archbishop who has riled the Roman Catholic Church by supporting marriage among Catholic priests has been excommunicated, the Vatican has said. > > [snip] > > The final straw for Emmanual Milingo – the archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia – was a service last weekend in Washington, D.C., in which he ordained four married priests as bishops without the consent of the Holy See. > > The four priests were also excommunicated by the Vatican. 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? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/2 "2006-10-23T16:01:47Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] For getting married. To an **adult woman**. Molest a little boy, get promoted. [/QUOTE] There’s a commandment against **adult** ery. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/3 "2006-10-23T16:06:07Z")
Cite that the RCC has a policy of promoting child molesters? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/4 "2006-10-23T16:24:58Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Cite that the RCC has a policy of promoting child molesters? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/5 "2006-10-23T16:26:33Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/6 "2006-10-23T16:32:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Get married, get excommunicated. The harshest punishment available to the church. For getting married. To an adult woman. 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: > [@](#): > > Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/7 "2006-10-23T16:39:24Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] How about considering the fact that (at least until possibly recently), there was no policy _against_ promoting child molesters. [/QUOTE] It doesn’t work that way. You said, “Molest a little boy, get promoted.” I asked for a cite. Put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/8 "2006-10-23T16:40:26Z")
[QUOTE=yBeayf] 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: [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/9 "2006-10-23T16:43:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/10 "2006-10-23T17:06:43Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] 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. [/QUOTE] Hyperbole is not a factual claim, and that statement was clearly hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/11 "2006-10-23T17:08:12Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? With (a), dispensation from that is reserved to the Holy See. Canon 1042: > [@](#): > > The following are simply impeded from receiving orders: > > 1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate; And Can. 1047 §2: > [@](#): > > Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See: > > […] > > 3/ the impediment mentioned in ⇒ can. 1042, n. 1. 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. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/12 "2006-10-23T17:10:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/13 "2006-10-23T17:18:08Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Cite that the RCC has a policy of promoting child molesters? [/QUOTE] 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: > **[The Boston Globe | New England news, weather and sports](https://www.bostonglobe.com/)** > > New England’s largest news organization delivering trusted news, analysis, and insight for more than 150 years. Become a Globe subscriber today. among several other I could find with mimimal Google searching. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/14 "2006-10-23T17:27:02Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] It doesn’t work that way. You said, “Molest a little boy, get promoted.” I asked for a cite. Put up or shut up. [/QUOTE] 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. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393334](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393334) > **[Hurt me, Vikings! Hurt me more!](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393141)** > > Note: This pitting is in advance of what is sure to be a painful performance by the Vikings tomorrow. So just use whichever adjective more accurately describes what is sure to be another in a long line of absurdities… That was ridiculous! How the... > **[Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391682)** > > Here you moderate me for saying I think a poster is covetous… http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7857550&postcount=39 … which is not the same as saying they are covetous and is certainly not high up on the list of insults, nor... > **[I pit the Welfare Division (long and slightly lame)](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393015)** > > I know that $10 an hour seems like a lot for someone who didn’t go to college. I get that. Really. I do. And yes, I could go without a cell phone, except that I signed a contract with Sprint and the fuckers are gonna charge me $200 if I cancel it -... ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/15 "2006-10-23T17:45:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/16 "2006-10-23T18:18:21Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/17 "2006-10-23T18:21:14Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] My bad, I dared to make a sarcastic statement in the pit. [/quote] No problem, just don’t let it happen again. > [@](#): > > 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. > > [Fresh Garbage: The Spirit of the Law - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393334) > [Hurt me, Vikings! Hurt me more! - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393141) > [Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy. - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391682) > [I pit the Welfare Division (long and slightly lame) - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=393015) No cite, I see. So you pulled that statement out of your ass? Thought so. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/18 "2006-10-23T18:21:41Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] 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. [/QUOTE] I doubt a known pedophile would be approved for ordination, either. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/19 "2006-10-23T18:43:48Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I doubt a known pedophile would be approved for ordination, either. [/QUOTE] Nor would he be removed after ordination, to judge from history. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579/20 "2006-10-23T19:05:43Z")
[QUOTE=Enginerd] Nor would he be removed after ordination, to judge from history. [/QUOTE] 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priorities/377579.md?page=2)