The last line:
But it could be worse. At least he’s paying to fantasize about sex with adults who are old enough to consent to perform for him, and he’s physically assaulting people who are his own size and capable of fighting back.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, I am *in no way *defending pedophile priests, or embezzling priests, or the bishops who shuffled the pervs from parish to parish. As an observant Catholic, I probably hate these people more than you do. The sin of scandal (it’s a technical term, meaning a sin that causes others to doubt their faith) is a *very big deal *in Catholicism. As is molesting children.
That said, of course it’s possible to be a faithful Catholic and a sinner, even a child molester. We *all *are sinners in one way or another. We know this.
I’m not defending Bishop Paprocki here, but how, exactly, is this a violation of the principle of separation of church and state?
They are 2 politicians. Their decision at work is the Bishop’s motivation.
I know that. And how is that a violation of the principle of church and state?
Catholics who oppose abortion do so because they believe it is the taking of a human life. Do you suppose this Bishop imposes his restrictions on the guy who gave Gacy his last injection?
I don’t know. I have no idea. It would be fine with me if he did, especially since the Catholic Church teaches, quite clearly, that the death penalty is always wrong.
Look, Catholic teaching on abortion is unambiguous. You may not agree with it. I may not agree with it.
But it is in no way a violation of the principle of of separation of church and state for a bishop to say that a Catholic who is in a state of mortal sin (as this bishop believes these legislators to be) may not present him or herself for Communion until he or she has cleared up that situation.
If I were, say, embezzling money from my employer (since that sin has come up before in this thread), I could not receive the Eucharist until I had confessed my sin and been absolved, and that absolution would be contingent upon a firm purpose of repentance, and probably making restitution, and certainly not doing it again. The same principle is being applied in this case, except that since the legislators’ action is public, the local ordinary has publicly said they may not receive communion.
There is no church and state issue here.
There’s my explanation of my thinking. Where’s yours? I genuinely don’t understand how you see this as a church/state issue.
Can you demonstrate how the Catholic Church has treated scandal as a big deal? Can you demonstrate how the Catholic Church has treated priests molesting children as a big deal? 'Cause I ain’t seeing it.
The separation of Church of State applies to actions by the State. It does not apply to actions by the Church.
The Bishop has made a decision based on nothing but state politics. He can keep his fucking mouth shut about politics, or the Catholic church can pay taxes.
While I agree that religions should not be exempt from taxation, the ostensible motivation for their tax-exempt status is to prevent the government interfering with religious organizations, not the other way around.
Should we try to bar religious organizations from influencing public policy? Perhaps, along with corporations and evil billionaires. But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents it at the moment. And what form would such a policy take? We surely can’t ask members of Congress to try to disregard their own religious convictions when voting.
I guess all we can do is expect people who can reason and have sympathy for abused children to abandon the greedy guilt and accountability free finger pointing hypocrites.
Fuck this thread, I’ll see you elsewhere on the board.
The Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse committed by its priests, and hidden away by its bishops, has been shameful. I’m not trying to argue otherwise.
I was merely trying to put the actions of the Bishop of Springfield into the context of Catholic ecclesiology.
The Bishop has made a decision based on his Church’s teaching on abortion.
You may disagree with that teaching. You may (like me) think the Bishop’s action is counter-productive, and perhaps even hypocritical.
But I don’t think it had anything to do with state politics. It’s entirely consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.
Hey, you wanna tax the Church? You have my full and unwavering support!
A church’s tax exempt status is not endangered by a church leader expounding or instructing on a moral issue, whch is what abortion is regardless of your stance. What would (or should) endanger the exemption is if a church leader were to support a particular candidate and instruct the flock to vote for them.
Alright, I’m back. Do you think the Bishop publicly ostracising these 2 Democrats isn’t telling his parishoners how to vote?? Yeah, ok. I’ll do my best to leave you dumb shits alone now. Pray for me, fuckers.
No. It’s telling those two Democrats what action their church takes against those two Democrats for what a church leader deemed their advocacy of the opposite view on something their church considers a moral issue. And given the number of RCs having sex out of wedlock and using contraception with their spouse and/or lover but still receiving the Eucharist, somehow I don’t really think denying two politicians the Eucharist will change all that many votes.
Oh, and, Good God, you are a fucking moron, bobot.
In Catholic Spain, it better. Any time priests do more than say “vote according to your conscience”, the newspapers jump down their throat but do it after the congregation. We’ve had priests who were in different Parliaments or City Halls, but always under dispensation and while not holding “priest-jobs”. One of the newest MPs is a Minister in the Iglesia Evangélica whose main issue is the protection of children: his own daughter was murdered by a pedophile 