Is the Catholic Church smoking crack?!

[WV_Woman]

I am no Catholic basher but I am having a REALLY hard time with their actions lately!

They excommunicate 7 women priests, yet they vote that their pedophile priests can stay (as long as they’re kept away from kids)?

What’s up with that?

Are they REALLY saying that they would rather have a friggin child molester in the position of priest than any woman?

[happyheathen]

this surprises you?

the women were never eligible to be priests - their ordainment was contrary to the most basic tenents of the RCC - this would never be allowed to stand.

The Orders, however, acting on the expertise of a guy who has been “curing” pedophile priest (really, really cured!) for 20 years, decides that they should keep the creeps.

they better hope that the MA law limiting damage awards in civil actions against “charitable organization” to $20K holds.

i would put a link to the Catholic League’s “outrage of the day” here, but it is too pathetic for even me to bash,

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

See, I’d agree with your opinion on this matter if I knew two things.

First, what the hell are you talking about? The Catholic Church as I know it doesn’t have women priests, and since I am in fact Catholic it would be nice to know when the Pope changed the Church’s stance on that subject.

Two, what the hell are you talking about? A cite would be nice.

[WV_Woman]

Ok, fair enough.

Article announcing the pedos can stay:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020811/ap_on_re_us/abuse_religious_orders_14

Article talking about the women excommunicated:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020805/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_female_priests_4
For the record, I would’t say that the women deserved to be excommunicated but let’s face it, they knew the rules and went against them anyway. If they want to serve in that capacity there are plenty of other denominations that would be glad to have them … maybe they wouldn’t be called “priests” but it’d still be the basic duties, I’d assume (communion, preaching, counseling, baptisms, etc.).

For me it’s not so much that they kicked out the women … the problem is they’re letting the pedos stay!

[chique]

Um.

As much as I dislike the whole ‘Roman Catholic women can’t be priests’ thing, the fact of the matter is - SURPRISE!! - Catholic women can’t be priests.

Your cited article states a guy by the name of Romulo Braschi “ordained” the women. As Romulo Braschi is not a Roman Catholic archbishop, and as he had no standing to ordain anyone, the seven women were NOT ordained Catholic priests.

Try again!

(As an aside. Is there a website that will tell me the percentage of female, say, Southern Baptist, Episcapalian, Lutheran, Jewish, Pentacostal ministers?)

[beagledave]

Did you intentionally misrepresent what happened with the pedophilia issue, WV_Woman, or are you just reading impaired?

1. Note that your link is about religious orders, not diocesan priests (who are the majority of U.S. priests). If you had frickin actually read the damn article you would know that the bishops had taken a different approach this summer for diocesan priests.

2. "Religious communities will bar abusers from any positions that require face-to-face contact with parishioners. "…not just kids.

3. “Order priests are not completely independent from the church hierarchy. Under church law,bishops have authority over religious-order clergy serving within a diocese. Dozens of the estimated 300 clergymen taken off duty this year because of abuse claims are members of religious .communities.”

Lastly, the women, sad to say, are not “priests” of the RCC. The current rules of the game forbid female ordination. They knew that when they had their “ordination ceremony”. They knew that they would be excommunicated, and decided to go through with the actions anyway.

BTW, your statement “I am no Catholic basher” might be just a wee more believable without the “Is the Catholic Church smoking crack?!” title. :rolleyes:

[pldennison]

(As an aside. Is there a website that will tell me the percentage of female, say, Southern Baptist, Episcapalian, Lutheran, Jewish, Pentacostal ministers?)

I’d be more interested in a website that would tell me the percentage of child molestors among their clergy.

According to this site, found by quickly Googling “Episcopal church female clergy,” around 14% of ordained Episcopal clergy are women.

[matt_mcl]

BTW, your statement “I am no Catholic basher” might be just a wee more believable without the “Is the Catholic Church smoking crack?!” title.

Horse hockey. WV_Woman is manifestly complaining about the Catholic church in the sense of the Catholic hierarchy, not the community of individual church members. If I start a thread entitled, “Is the government of British Columbia on crack?!”, I assume I would be excused from British-Columbian-bashing.

[Coldfire]

The fact remains that the RCC’s choice to exclude women from becoming priests is completely irrelevant in this matter. The comparison in the OP is absolutely worthless.

Would they rather see pedophiles than women as priests?

I bet they’d prefer neither, to be honest.

[matt_mcl]

If that were true, they would have fired the pedophile priests, as well.

How about this one: they’re keeping the pedophiles but firing any gay guy (even a celibate one) they can get their hands on. So apparently they’d rather a priest have sex with an underage boy than be attracted to an adult man.

I think that’s rather fucked up of the Catholic hierarchy, if you ask me. I understand this has little to do with actual Catholics. I just find it très bizarre and more than a little disgusting.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**

Horse hockey. WV_Woman is manifestly complaining about the Catholic church in the sense of the Catholic hierarchy, not the community of individual church members. If I start a thread entitled, “Is the government of British Columbia on crack?!”, I assume I would be excused from British-Columbian-bashing. **

Well seeing how she can’t tell the difference between decisions made by leaders of religious orders, versus decisions made by diocesan bishops (or the Vatican) , it’s a bit unclear how wide her target is. She uses the word “they” in a rather sloppy manner, making it a bit difficult to track down who she is angry at. Unless, of course you think that “Catholic hierarchy” is one monolithic entity.

I do note, with some irony, that in your example, you do use the word “government”, while in her thread, she declined to reference any such similar distinction.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**If that were true, they would have fired the pedophile priests, as well.
**

Although there is a symbolic argument to be made for “firing” the priests, there is another argument to be made in favor of retaining “some” ties to these men. Ignoring the forgiveness/compassion argument, some church observers have noted that if a man has at least some level of connection to either a local bishop or religious order, it would be easier to “keep tabs on him”…as opposed to releasing all connections (and any chance of oversight). It’s IMHO, a tough call. One problem is trying to arrive at a one size fits all approach to a more complex problem.

**

How about this one: they’re keeping the pedophiles but firing any gay guy (even a celibate one) they can get their hands on.
**

Any cite that all gay priests are being “fired”?

[tomndebb]

How about this one: they’re keeping the pedophiles but firing any gay guy (even a celibate one) they can get their hands on. So apparently they’d rather a priest have sex with an underage boy than be attracted to an adult man.

Cite?

I know a couple of homosexual priests who are having no trouble–they’ve each been made pastor within the last couple of years.

---

Regarding the OP:

• A pedophile is a sinner. Sinners are the whole point of the church. Keeping a priest in orders while ordering him to refrain from any association with people in the parish is a way to keep an eye on him instead of cutting him loose to do whatever he wants in the world.

• A woman who claims that she is a validly ordained priest is declaring that she is outside church law (i.e., not in communion with the church), which the church may choose to formally recognize with excommunication.
  My personal belief is that women are called to Orders just as men are and that cultural filters have prevented the hierarchy from recognizing that. However, someone who deliberately announces that they have disregarded the rules of the church has pretty much put themselves outside it.

[tomndebb]

Well, it would have been a simulpost if I could type faster.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**

I’d be more interested in a website that would tell me the percentage of child molestors among their clergy.
**

Haven’t found one exactly like that. Philip Jenkins claims in his book on pedophilia and the clergy that the rate for protestant clergy is closer is probably the same as for RCC clergy.

See here for other points.

especially

Public bias: The public may view sexual abuse by priests very differently from similar crimes by Protestant clergy. The Roman Catholic Church is generally seen as a monolithic organization with a clearly defined rigid hierarchy. Thus a case of abuse becomes a “Roman Catholic scandal” rather than a local parish problem. A similar molestation in a Protestant church would probably be viewed as a local problem isolated to a single congregation, because of the decentralized nature of most Protestant churches

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
**The fact remains that the RCC’s choice to exclude women from becoming priests is completely irrelevant in this matter. The comparison in the OP is absolutely worthless. **

Actually, it does matter. You see, she posted something rude in the thread title, and then showed an utter lack of knowledge about the subject in the OP. As far as I’m concerned she had no business doing so.

Would they rather see pedophiles than women as priests?

Your question is fallacious, Coldie. The Church wouldn’t like to see either, I agree, BUT you don’t know if a priest is a pedophile until he molests a kid, so how do you make sure that there AREN’T any pedophile priests? You can’t. I am against the exclusion of women as priests, but I think I can safely say that they are easier to discern than pedophiles. So that comparison simply isn’t valid.

[Coldfire]

I was simply rephrasing what our esteemed OP said. Certainly, a question that stupid would never cross my lips. Fingertips. Whatever.

[Guinastasia]

sigh

Much as I want to see women and/or married priests, it isn’t happening right now, and these women had every reason to expect excommunication. They’re not priests, they’re not even the same thing as the pedophile priests, so that’s apples and oranges.

Religious orders are a bit different from diocesan priests and such, so they have more leeway and whathaveyou.

sigh

Is WV_Woman smoking crack? :rolleyes:

As for you, happyheathen, get bent. We get you don’t like Catholicism. Must you be such an assbag about it?

[pldennison]

This is a really, really dumb question, but for some reason I’m thinking of it and figured one of the posters here would know: Is there any atonement that can be performed which will get an excommunication revoked? Or are the doors closed forever to that individual?

[matt_mcl]

I do note, with some irony, that in your example, you do use the word “government”, while in her thread, she declined to reference any such similar distinction.

Huh? She said, “Is the Catholic Church on crack?” She didn’t say “Are Catholics on crack?” That’s a distinction from where I’m sitting.

Moving right along:

Here’s something interesting:

Detroit’s Cardinal Adam Maida, for example, said recently that the crisis was “not truly a pedophilia-type problem but a homosexual-type problem.”

And the Vatican, in response to the scandal, will undertake its first intensive inspection of U.S. Catholic seminaries in 20 years, giving special attention to the “suitability” of applicants – an endeavor some interpret as a move to exclude homosexual men from seminaries.

In such a climate, many gay priests are increasingly worried about their future as priests.

Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, among others, have said they do not accept homosexuals at the seminaries in their dioceses.

Spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said the Washington Archdiocese asks applicants detailed questions about their sexual orientation and past sexual activity as well as their commitment to the church’s teachings on sexuality.

I was wrong to say that they are firing the gay priests, but they’re definitely not happy about even having celibate ones. Certainly the hierarchy has been much less indulgent towards gay priests now than they’ve been in permitting pedophiles to shuffle from parish to parish, molesting children at each whistle stop.

And while we’re at it, here’s a long hard look (oooh!) at the “gay priest problem.”