Catholic priorities

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
No cite, I see. So you pulled that statement out of your ass? Thought so.
[/QUOTE]

As has been pointed out, the statement was hyperbole. Do I need to go to dictionary dot fucking com and post the definition of hyperbole for you, you stupid prick?

And Revtim provided a cite for a priest being promoted after molesting a kid, so a cite has been provided, which you conveniently ignored. You have an amazing capacity to ignore everything in a thread except your own stupid demand for a cite for something I never said. Did I strike a nerve? Do you want to defend priest chomos but are afraid to do it in the open, so you snipe at people who pit priest chomos, in hopes of drawing attention away from the fact that the church coddles priest chomos? Where’s your dog in this fight? Methinks you protest too much.

22

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
No cite, I see. So you pulled that statement out of your ass? Thought so.
[/QUOTE]
I provided a cite for the OP’s “Molest a little boy, get promoted” statement in post #13. Did you find that source invalid or untrustworthy for some reason?

23

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
The difference being that if a married person is ordained, the ordination was never legitimate to begin with.

I imagine what these kinds of excommuncations are about is the flagrant disobedience towards the Holy See.
[/QUOTE]

I am not anxious to get into an ecclesiological side-fight with you here, but I have to say that your first statement is flat-out wrong. Under Roman-Rite Catholic discipline, marriage is an impediment to priestly (and episcopal) orders, **but not a nullifying one. If that were the case, the ordinations of married former Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and of married permanent deacons, would be null and void. Instead, such ordinations are not licit, since they are done without the sanction of the Holy See, but are within the indelible faculties which a bishop receives at consecration. It is merely that in submitting himself to the discipline of the See of Peter, he agrees not to ordain in a manner contrary to the instructions of the Pope.

Your second quoted statement nails the problem. It is an issue of authority, not of the capacity of the ordained to receive the sacrament, or of the Ordinary to perform it.

24

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I am not anxious to get into an ecclesiological side-fight with you here, but I have to say that your first statement is flat-out wrong. Under Roman-Rite Catholic discipline, marriage is an impediment to priestly (and episcopal) orders, **but not a nullifying one. If that were the case, the ordinations of married former Anglican priests converting to Catholicism, and of married permanent deacons, would be null and void. Instead, such ordinations are not licit, since they are done without the sanction of the Holy See, but are within the indelible faculties which a bishop receives at consecration. It is merely that in submitting himself to the discipline of the See of Peter, he agrees not to ordain in a manner contrary to the instructions of the Pope.
[/QUOTE]
You are right…I did not think that one through very well. Certainly, there are married Catholic priests due to conversion.

Because it is an issue of obedience, I think the OP demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem. The problem isn’t with being married per se, it is with the lack of obedience. This would likewise apply to many issues within the Church, not just the marriage issue.

Regarding the complaint that the Church has spent a lot more energy preventing priestly marriage than priestly pedophila, I think this is really comparing apples & oranges. One is clearly a sin, and a crime, and should be treated as such. Staying celibate is what is called a discipline. It is codified because otherwise, there would be no reason for it not to happen, as getting married is not a sin unless someone has made a vow to God that they would not. With pedophila, or any other sin for that matter, the sin is no greater because a priest commits it than if anyone else does…it should be assumed that it is wrong and there should be consequences, just as for anyone. (Granted, this has not always happened, and please don’t take any of this as a justification for some of the hierarchy’s mishandling of this situation).

25

In other words, if this helps anyone, excommunicating these bishops was done as discipline for an organizational infraction (violating canon law, which is the “infrastructure” of the Church), rather than a theological infraction (violating doctrinal law, which is the spirit of the Church). The bishops weren’t excommunicated because they were married, but because they were ordained without pontifical approval.

26

[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]

Here’s a whole list. Some were promoted, some transferred

27

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
With pedophila, or any other sin for that matter, the sin is no greater because a priest commits it than if anyone else does…
[/QUOTE]
Not so.

In nearly all of these cases, the priest used his authority as a pastoral leader to do the molestation, or to force the boy to keep quiet about it.

So this is additionally an abuse of his priestly authority. In the laws of many states, molestation by a person 'in a position of authority" over the child is an intensifing factor, and can result in greater penalties.

28

No, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the OP. The point is, there should be a fucking church law against molesting little boys! When you molest little boys, you should be “disobeying,” because the pope should have made a rule against it! Cheese and rice, is it really this hard? How clearly do I have to say it? The pope went to the trouble to write down in the Official Church Rule Book that you can’t be married, or can’t ordain someone who is married. So when this guy ordained married people he was disobeying the pope. I get it. My point is the pope never went to the trouble to write down in the Official Church Rule Book that you can’t molest little kids! Do you see the difference? What the church goes through the trouble to write down in the Official Rule Book says a lot about the priorities of the church. And a church that writes down that you get the absolute worst punishment possible for ordaining a married guy, but writes down nothing about molestation, is a church whose priorities are totally fucked up. Hence the thread title, Catholic priorities.

29

Pick on Catholics much? While I’m not Catholic, I have to say that the OP is mostly just Catholic bashing in my opinion. What he’s saying is that because the Catholic Church did not go after the child molesting priests as hard as they should have, that now they can’t enforce any other rules. That’s bullshit.

I say they should enforce all their rules and not let up on priests that commit a criminal act that could send them to prison. If the OP said that I’d say, “Good!”. But it doesn’t.

30

The church has screwed up royally by protecting priests who preyed on young children, no doubt about it.

U.S. Congress has screwed up royally as well by not protecting its pages from lecherous congressmen.

I’m not abandoning catholicism any more than I’m renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Why? Because I remain devoted to the principles even while I remain disenchanted with the leadership.

31

Hmm, Catholic priests molest boys, church officially covers it up and facilitates further molestations by moving them to new churches with fresh meat and without warning parents about it.

This practice is pitted.

Who_me complains that the OP is “Catholic bashing.” Boo-hoo.

They deserved to be bashed for their behavior. Do you disagree?

No, what I’m saying is what I said. I think my mistake was in assuming that anyone with the intelligence to actually sign on to a web page would be able to understand a simple, short post, with a little bit of sarcasm. But apparently, between a moron demanding cites for things I never said, people defending the church for protecting the priests because the priests didn’t actually break any church rules, and now you putting words in my mouth, I was giving you too much credit.

Sorry I didn’t write what you think I should write. It must be very frustrating for you to come to a message board with so many people writing things that you have not approved in advance.

32

[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Not so.

In nearly all of these cases, the priest used his authority as a pastoral leader to do the molestation, or to force the boy to keep quiet about it.

So this is additionally an abuse of his priestly authority. In the laws of many states, molestation by a person 'in a position of authority" over the child is an intensifing factor, and can result in greater penalties.
[/QUOTE]
You are right, of course. But many, many people who molest children also have jobs in some kind of authority over a child…that is how they access them. So, if a person is a teacher, a coach, a scout leader, their position is no different from a priest’s.

33

[QUOTE=Revtim]
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:

among several other I could find with mimimal Google searching.
[/QUOTE]

The OP’s statement carries with it a certain inference. “Molest a little boy, get promoted,” suggests that there is either some cause and effect, or at least knowledge about the abuse, prior to the promotion. To construct the statement otherwise is to assume that the following statements would pass unchallenged:

Elect a Democrat to the White House, drop a hydrogen bomb on a city.
Elect a black mayor, get hit with a levee breach.
Smoke a pack a day, never get cancer.

All of those statements can be “supported” by reference to actual events. Yet I have no doubt that if someone posted any of them, they’d be challenged, and rightly so – because the INFERENCE they invite is of cause and effect.

In this case, your link says:

So your link falls short of showing that Graham was promoted BECAUSE he abused a child. It doesn’t even show that Graham was promoted IN SPITE OF the fact that Law knew he was an abuser. It merely shows that one event followed the other. This is known as the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

34

Bricker, all 4 statements are obvious hyperbole. The inability of the reader to not pick up on that ‘subtlety’ is not the writer’s problem.

35

I knew this would degenerate into whether the OP’s “Molest a little boy, get promoted” statement inferred causality, and not just sequence of events. When the basic premise of an OP is ugly but still correct, the thread must become a nitpicking over what people said and what they meant, and tortuous grammatical analysis that even if it turns out to be technically correct, only serves to distract from the ugly truth, and not refute it. I’m only surprised it took so long.

FWIW, I agree “Molest a little boy, get promoted,” could be read by some to imply cause and effect. But since it does not necessarily imply as such, the link I provided still supports the statement. In fact, I think the relationship between the two clauses of the statement is better described not as causality or even time sequence, but as [clause 2 happens ] despite [clause 1].

I’m sure your lawyerly ways will force you to argue semantics further, Bricker, go ahead and enjoy yourself. But even if you were correct, the main point of the OP stands.

36

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Hmm, Catholic priests molest boys, church officially covers it up and facilitates further molestations by moving them to new churches with fresh meat and without warning parents about it.

This practice is pitted.

[/QUOTE]

Excuse me? That not what is pitted. What is pitted is that the Catholic Church did not punish child molesting priests and is now punishing others who broke different rules. Why else:

37

I disagree with this statement. I think that one could conceivably infer cause and effect from that statement, but I don’t think it’s the most likely interpretation. I think people read into things based upon their biases, and if your bias is that you reflexively defend everything the Catholic church does, you might read it that way. But I think it was pretty clear that I did not mean to imply cause and effect, as other people have had no problem discerning. When I read something with multiple possible interpretations, I usually go with what seems most likely, and I assumed that others around here did the same. Obviously I was wrong. The idea that someone would be promoted because they molested kids is so absurd that it did not even cross my mind that someone would interpret it that way (but in my defense, I’ve never been to law school.) The only rational (in my mind) way to interpret that is that you can get promoted even though you have molested kids. YMObviouslyV.

And I think Revtim nailed it- anyone trying to nitpick that statement is merely defocusing from the real point of the OP. Care to comment on the actual point, Bricker, or do you want to throw out some more obfuscatory semantics?

38

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
No, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the OP. The point is, there should be a fucking church law against molesting little boys! When you molest little boys, you should be “disobeying,” because the pope should have made a rule against it! Cheese and rice, is it really this hard? How clearly do I have to say it? The pope went to the trouble to write down in the Official Church Rule Book that you can’t be married, or can’t ordain someone who is married. So when this guy ordained married people he was disobeying the pope. I get it. My point is the pope never went to the trouble to write down in the Official Church Rule Book that you can’t molest little kids! Do you see the difference? What the church goes through the trouble to write down in the Official Rule Book says a lot about the priorities of the church. And a church that writes down that you get the absolute worst punishment possible for ordaining a married guy, but writes down nothing about molestation, is a church whose priorities are totally fucked up. Hence the thread title, Catholic priorities.
[/QUOTE]
I understand the OP. The problem is that it is rife with errors (with a couple of small facts thrown in).

The first error is your specious claim that excommunication is “harshest punishment available to the church.” The harshest punishment is to hand someone over the the civil authorities to be burned at the stake (although we have tended to get away from that particular practice, lately). As has been noted many times on these boards, excommunication is not intended as punishment, but as a corrective. Given the premise that most Catholics would rather be participating in the church than out of it, a person who is engaging in acts that are contrary to the church with an expectation that they will continue is excommunicated as a “wake up call” that they have gone too far and they need to change their behavior if they wish to participate in the Sacraments.

A bishop who ordains other bishops without permission from the Vatican has engaged in behavior that is designed to show that he is not under the rule of the church and the church recognizes that fact by formally acknowledging that he is, indeed, outside the church. If he and the bishops he consecrated come back and ask forgiveness and demonstrate that they intend to remain in the church, the excommunication will be lifted.
(Despite your erroneous claim, the marriage of the bishop and priests was not the cause of the excommunication, regardless that they married “adult” women.)

I know of no molestor who indicated to his superiors that he intended to go on molesting children. If such a priest did exist, he clearly should have been both removed from the active ministry and excommunicated.

Now I agree that there have been too many diocese in which the response to abusive priests was too tolerant. On the other hand, they are not the sum total of the church and in many other diocese, abusers have been removed from the ministry as soon as they were identified.

However, you got the “punishment” aspect of excommunication wrong and you got the reason behind this particular excommunication wrong, so the two major points of your OP are in error. Feel free to rant about the church; just recognize that your OP was mostly wrong.

39

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]

[Quote=Bricker]
The OP’s statement carries with it a certain inference. “Molest a little boy, get promoted,” suggests that there is either some cause and effect, or at least knowledge about the abuse, prior to the promotion.
[/quote]

I disagree with this statement. I think that one could conceivably infer cause and effect from that statement, but I don’t think it’s the most likely interpretation.
[/QUOTE]
Piffle:

“Molest a little boy, get promoted” has the identical structure as
“Buy a car; get a check!” (from which you probably borrowed the syntax).

While there is a remote chance that you actually did not intend cause and effect, a claim that it is not “the most likely” interpretation is just the sort of semantic game of which you are accusing Bricker.

40

OK, this is a joke, right? This is a setup? Where’s the punchline. Giving someone to civil authorities to be burned at the stake is a punishment that is “available to the church.” And my post is full of errors. Whatever.

Or, did you not literally mean that the church can hand someone to the authorities to be burned at the stake? Did you mean something else? If I were to interpret your statement here to mean that you literally believe that the church can have someone burned at the stake, would that be the most likely interpretation? This has to be a joke. Where is Lord Ashtar now, demanding a cite that burning at the stake is a punishment “available to the church?”

Agreed. And molesting little boys is not one of the things that triggers this “acknowleging that he is, indeed, outside the church.” And it should be. Hence the pitting.

I’ve never met a child molester who admitted that he was going to keep molesting kids. Most, however, still did. I’m usually inclined, given the risk involved, to not take a molester at his word when he says he won’t do it again.

Agreed.

This pitting is directed at actions taken by the pope, who, at least to me, is the sum total of the church.

I’m not convinced of this yet, unless you can (seriously) point me to an action that the church can take that is harsher than excommunication. “Handing someone over to the authorities” doesn’t count, because then it is the authorities doing the punishing, not the church.

True, but that doesn’t change the absurdity of the situation. My point still stands, that the priorities of the church are totally screwed up.