Sure, if excommunication can be automatic, why not mere defrocking?
The problem is that Catholic church officials never hesitate to lecture the rest of us on proper moral behavior while behaving atrociously themselves.
Condoms? Bad!
Gay sex? Bad!
Birth control pills? Bad!
Sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes? Bad!
IVF? Bad!
Abortion to save a woman’s life? Bad!
Molesting little boys? Well um er eh um . . .
:rolleyes:
Is defrocking any more of a punishment than excommunication? Can’t they just refrock the guy if the charge turns out to be spurious?
I admit, my knowledge of RCC operational policies is somewhat limited.
Well, since they can make up any rules they want, I don’t see why we’d care what the current rules say.
Christ on a cracker, Bricker. There is ONLY one side to this. Are you autistic in some way? Seriously–how can you be so tone deaf to what this thread is about? The irony is that it’s been one sided–in the Church’s favor-- for centuries and yet you cavil at people tarring the entire Church black due to the evil actions of a minority who had huge power within the Church.
Guess what? The evil done to those children was then perpetrated on their children, their relatives, their friends and their community. Who knows the whole, true cost of robbing children of innocence by abusing them? The alcoholics it created, the ones who went on to do as they had been done by, the suicides, the sheer misery of human lives all caused because some “celibate”, pathetic men believed in words supposedly divinely inspired, but just couldn’t seem to forgo sweet, sweet young ass. How does any institution or group begin to redress something this big? It isn’t going to be made tidy and it isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Sucks to be Catholic right now, I suppose, but that’s your misfortune.
In answer to your lawyerly question , putting protocols and mandatory reporting etc is a START. It is not meaningless going forward, *but there is no going forward as yet. *That’s what you don’t understand. Old abuses and other places where abuse has happened are still coming to light. This is not a matter that can be addressed by a PR release and a mea culpa. Ratzi’s gagging on any kind of apology and seeming reluctance to be the poster boy for atonement doesn’t help matters much.
Don’t get me wrong: I work for a Catholic hospital. I know and like many Catholics as people. I despise their religion and its structure, makeup and values. IMO, it has almost nothing to do with the love of Christ or the love of their fellow man (I won’t even start on their regard and treatment of women). But I do see that the Church did some good in this crazy world at one time. That time is not now and frankly, what has come to light has tainted all that the Church ever did in its long history. It needs to change or it will die.
So that’s a yes on unethical behaviour because “they do it too”. I thought that argument was wrong, or maybe it’s only wrong when arguing in favour of the Church. I might’ve missed the memo.
Because they are two different things. I’d fully agree with a letae sententiae excommunication on child abuse. Defrocking is an administrative action that requires procedures.
Sure you can can reinstate him, but punishing people for allegations is not right; would you agree on similar procedures for all allegation of crimes?
Defrocking a priest is basically cancelling his licence, not a suspension or administrative leave.
How witty! Good for you! Lemme put a star on your forehead.
Good girl!
Assuming you actually want an answer…ANY quote were there is any doubt that in the eyes of the Church molesting is not always wrong?
Also, you’re wrong on the sex for non-procreative purposes bit.
Someone accuses the Church of A, B, C, and D. I point out that D is untrue.
Your point seems to be, “I don’t CARE if D isn’t true! D doesn’t matter! What matters is that A, B, C and D show how horrible the Church is! Even if D isn’t true, A, B, and C show how horrible the Church is! So shut up about D!”
I can’t make it much simpler than that.
I know exactly what this thread is about.
The Church has done bad things. This becomes, in your mind, a license to say anything about the Church, true or untrue.
And any defense against the untrue things is swept away, not on its merits, but as a defense of the bad Church, without the slightest intention to worry about the truth of the particular accusation.
THAT is what this thread is all about. Believe me, I haven’t missed it.
Perfect example:
Umm… actually, no, the Church doesn’t say that sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad at all. To the contrary, it says…
AAAH! SHUT UP!! BAD, BAD, DIDN’T YOU HEAR ME?!? How dare you defend the Church?
So you stipulate A, B, and C, then? You might just say so and save yourself a bit of embarrassment. It would help far more to tell us how you’re helping to fix the problem instead of resorting to defensive lectures on this “canon law” bullshit.
Aji:
When you’re discussing an organization whose very purpose is to provide leadership on “ethical behavior”, then yes, “they do it too” is as lame as any excuse could possibly be.
Missing the pont. The church will automatically excommunicate for a life-saving act, why not automatically excommunicate (which would necessarily include defrocking) for a life-destroying act?
If you had a substantive reply available, no doubt you’d have provided it.
Actions speak louder. If they thought it was always wrong, they wouldn’t be protecting those of their number who do it, and further abuse their victims, now would they?
True, the position is that sex in which procreation is excluded as a possibility is wrong. The position is still perverted and hateful, though.
OK, but if D is false, but A, B and C are still true, then the D does not absolve any bit of A, B and C.
OK, so we drop D. We still have A, B and C to play with. That means, we can still pile on and have a good old time here.
And, what Elvis said: “Actions speak louder. If they thought it was always wrong, they wouldn’t be protecting those of their number who do it, and further abuse their victims, now would they?”
Don’t they argue that sex that excludes the possibility of conception is morally wrong?
:dubious:
Defend the church all you want. But don’t whine about bigotry and anti-Catholicism when people dare argue with an organization that claims to hold moral authority over everyone else on the planet.
Catholic church officials activity lobby against gay marriage, against contraception, against abortion even to save a woman’s life and against other rational health care measures that deal with human sexuality in a rational way.
You can’t simultaneously stick your nose in the public arena and then complain bigotry everytime anyone dares disagree with your idiotic ideas.
Actually I have very little evidence at all that church officials think molesting is in fact wrong. Officials at the highest levels actively engaged in covering it up, ignored repeated evidence of abuse and did much to smear victims who complained.
Meanwhile they’re forever nattering on about the “evils” of abortion, IVF and gay sex.
It’s insane.
My SIL had a family gathering and invited her friend the priest. A nice guy but I made sure my little girl was nowhere near him at all times. Church officials have only themselves to blame for my actions on that day.
No it is not. This thread is about the bad things the Church has done. The OP highlights the essential hypocrisy in the Church: you can diddle little kiddies as much as you like and we’ll support you*, but woe unto you if you save a pregnant woman’s life! It then evolved into the systemic sex abuse scandal we all know so well and the Church’s response to that.
YOUR posts are about trying to point out the Church didn’t do “D”. It’s been so long since I read what “D” was originally, I no longer know. Please reiterate what your “D” is–and leave Idi Amin out of this. I am not about to wade through 6 pages of thread to find your picayune, pedantic “D”.
Of course allegations should be proven prior to defrocking. But the priest in question should be removed from the sphere of children until those charges are disproved. Such action is a bureaucratic nightmare for any large organization. Too bad, so sad; it must be done. How else will trust be regained?
Somehow I doubt the current Church is interested in regaining trust, but that’s another thread and my own opinion.
*well, not anymore, but really we won’t hold it against you and make it awful like saving a female’s life is.
Why do they need to? People like Bricker and Aji don’t seem to have any doubts. They are certain. Who needs trust when you have faith?
I think they are, but they view trust as something they are owed by the flock, not something they have to earn. They’re the ones God chose for the job, they’re the institution founded by Peter, right?
You are both right. IMO, the Catholic church has always had those views (that they are owed fealty and trust by their members–and the world at large–but also that the True Faithful will see recent news story etc as “church bashing” and anti-Catholicism.)
And to a great extent, they’re (the church) is right, as shown by this thread. It so reminds me of an alcoholic family: say what you like at family functions, but the minute an outsider (inlaw or friend) questions the dysfunction, circle those wagons and repel all “attacks”.
It’s monumentally retarded.
No, your faulty grasp of statistics is to blame.
Yeah Catholic church official who literally shifted known pedophiles around from place to place bear no responsibility at all for the public perception that their organization condones pedophilia and that the local priest might do terrible things to your kid when you’re not looking.
Not at all.
Was he at the meeting?
Public perception of course, but there’s the whole fighting ignorace thing, you know.
No, I read the thread. I was under the impression that priests and lawyers who are given information that their client is going to commit a serious crime are not protected by privilege. That in fact if they kept silent and allowed, say, some kids to get raped that they were guilty of a crime. And punished. And not by being made Pope. Or am I incorrect? I’m not a lawyer - Buddhism has this thing about “right livelihood”, see.