RCC bans ordination of Gays and supporters..

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I didn't say they were true luxuries.

If they're not true luxuries, then what are you complaining about?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
religious sisters
they fit well in my stable
cardinal law, bitch!

TheSkipper

This is a very good haiku.

This is a very good true haiku.

This is not a very good true true haiku.

This is a very good true true true haiku.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If they're not true luxuries, then what are you complaining about?

I'm complaining about him receiving luxuries, not true luxuries.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When the Church teaches that ordination causes an ontological change, it isn't just making a cute philosophical point. A priest or a Bishop remains a priest or Bishop even if he is laicized or stripped of his responsibilities. A Government has an obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens even if the citizens violate their own obligations (e.g. by refusing to vote, or breaking the law).

Here in Pittsburgh, there is a priest who has been excommunicated because he left the
Church and formed his own institution. With him, several hundred Roman Catholics,
many of whom I know, 'defected' and excommunicated themselves to be members of
his new church. He was a member of the RCC for 39 years.

He has never abused anyone, he has never supported the abuse of people, and he is
a spiritual leader of a community of faithful trying to find their way in the world.
His priesthood is still valid, as are his Sacraments (although not licit, of course).

They have denied him his pension earned over his 39 years as a faithful member of
the Pittsburgh diocese, they refuse to pay his health benefits (he has some health
concerns), and, of course, have stopped paying him.

The story is much longer than that, but I think you see my point: there are, indeed,
circumstances where failure to meet with the expected duties of the Church should
result in the removal of an individual. The same for those priests who get married.

They have violated the basic duty of their *VOCATION*.

Yes, the priesthood is a vocation. It's what you are. I don't dispute that. But so is
marriage, and annulments are granted all the time (and for a fee). When someone
acts in a henious way towards their flock, like Bernard Law, then, yes, they should be
shunned from their family.

And, having a 'house staff' is an absurdity. I don't know how you could not
concede that he was given a cushy job with an easy retirement. If the Church wanted
to put him to good use, then they should have made him an auxiliary bishop to some
tiny diocese that needs help with Confirmations or something. He is living a life of
luxury relative to 95% of his faithful. The fact that you aren't appalled by this, the
fact that Roman Catholics have just tacitly accepted that this is the way the Church is,
protecting those who harbor child abusers, is just astounding.

Nemesio

Another example, here in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. There was
a priest here who stole money from collection baskets for personal
gain and amusement. He was removed and dismissed from
ministry, taken off the books, and shown the door.

Obviously, some offenses merit certain reactions. How does harboring
pedophiles not merit this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Another example, here in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. There was
a priest here who stole money from collection baskets for personal
gain and amusement. He was removed and dismissed from
ministry, taken off the books, and shown the door.

Obviously, some offenses merit certain reactions. How does harboring
pedophiles not merit this?

Nemesio

If this priest didn't already have a car, a driver and a household staff, then it seems to me that he is entitled to the money in the collection plate, since Cardinal Law is. I think this guy got the shaft.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Having a car, driver and maid staff isn't luxurious? Give me a break. Most working people can't afford all of these.

That's what I'm coming to appreciate about snake handling preachers. They go out and get a job just like everybody else.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It is a monthly stipend of 4,000 euros (about $5,000) that includes personal expenses, car, driver and living expenses of two or three religious sisters who will run his household.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw060404.htm

What's your point?

I'd like a stable like that.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'd like a stable like that.

No kidding. Even most pimps have to drive themselves.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No kidding. Even most pimps have to drive themselves.

You know I wuz doin a little on-line Christmas shopping on bling-bling-jewels.com and found some very nice chalices that would seem to have a cross-over attraction to pimps and priests alike.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]When the Church teaches that ordination causes an ontological change, it isn't just making a cute philosophical point. A priest or a Bishop remains a priest or Bishop even if he is laicized or stripped of his responsibilities. A Government has an obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens even if the citi ...[text shortened]... ay the Church is,
protecting those who harbor child abusers, is just astounding.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
The story is much longer than that, but I think you see my point: there are, indeed, circumstances where failure to meet with the expected duties of the Church should result in the removal of an individual.

Excommunication is not dismissal. Nor is it punishment. It is a medicinal penalty intended to cause the person to return to the Church. In the case of your priest, all of his former privileges will be returned to him when he returns to the Church.

But so is marriage, and annulments are granted all the time (and for a fee).

A decree of nullity is not to be granted lightly. That it may be misused in practice does not make such abuse the normative reality that the Church believes in.

When someone acts in a henious way towards their flock, like Bernard Law, then, yes, they should be shunned from their family.

You're talking about revenge, not forgiveness or correction. I'm sorry if this is how you think families should behave every time a member wrongs other members.

I don't know how you could not concede that he was given a cushy job with an easy retirement.

How can he have both a cushy job and an easy retirement? I think there is an incongruity there. In any case, I don't think being a top administrator for a Church of a billion is an easy job - I know I couldn't do it.

If the Church wanted to put him to good use, then they should have made him an auxiliary bishop to some tiny diocese that needs help with Confirmations or something.

Again, you're talking revenge and humiliation - not putting someone to good use. If Cardinal Law's skills are best suited for the bureaucracy of the Curia, then that is where he is put to best use.

The fact that you aren't appalled by this, the fact that Roman Catholics have just tacitly accepted that this is the way the Church is, protecting those who harbor child abusers, is just astounding.

I don't get it - you accuse the Church of being bloodthirsty with the Inquisition; now it's not bloodthirsty enough for you?

I'm appalled what the Bishops and priests involved did. I'm appalled if there are still priests who are being protected from the law by the Church on this issue. I'm not appalled, however, that Church does not have a permanent vendetta against them as many people do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Excommunication is not dismissal. Nor is it punishment. It is a medicinal penalty intended to cause the person to return to the Church.

Dismissal and return are opposites in my book. If excommunication is not dismissal,
then how can he return?

While I fully understand the Church's stance on the removal of his faculties to perform
the Sacraments licitly, he is still part of the Church family (according to you by means
of the ontological change). Why shouldn't he receive his salary and, more significantly
his pension which he earned through years of faithful service.

In the case of your priest, all of his former privileges will be returned to him when he returns to the Church.

Wrong. He was told that, if he were to return, it would be in a forced retirement.

A decree of nullity is not to be granted lightly. That it may be misused in practice does not make such abuse the normative reality that the Church believes in.

So there are indeed ways of absolving a vocation.

You're talking about revenge, not forgiveness or correction. I'm sorry if this is how you think families should behave every time a member wrongs other members.

If you believe that dismissing a pedophile-protector from the payroll constitutes
revenge, then you have a bizarre way of understanding the term. Furthermore,
I'm not talking about dismissing him from the Church family, so stop setting up
this strawman: if he makes a confession, let him receive the Sacraments. I am
all for his maintaining a spiritual communion with the Church.

That is not the issue. The issue is he failed in his vocation to uphold and
protect the flock of his diocese. This is not debatable. He miserably failed
and strived to protect himself from other peoples' observing of his failure. He
was clearly a politician and not a shepherd.

As such, he should be removed from such a position of authority. When people
fail in their jobs, they get demoted or fired. He failed in something bigger than
his job; he failed in his vocation. His failure -- his desire to protect himself and
the Church's appearance rather than his flock -- is fundamental in nature; it is a
basic violation of the trust placed in him by virtue of his vocation.

So, his being appointed to the Basilica in Rome hardly represents a
recognition by the Church that he failed. On the contrary, he now lives better than
the vast majority of priests under the Church.

Let me ask you this: if he were a pedophile himself (and I am not saying he is),
but the statues of limitations had run out such that he could not be prosecuted,
would you approve of his position?

How can he have both a cushy job and an easy retirement? I think there is an incongruity there. In any case, I don't think being a top administrator for a Church of a billion is an easy job - I know I couldn't do it.

I seem to recall that you were arguing that his position was titular and not really much
of job. I could be wrong about this, but are you saying that he has a top job now? You
mean, in spite of his track record as a harborer of perverts, he was given the honor of
a job of respect within the Church?

Do you not see the problem here? The man is clearly a self-absorbed power monger.
He did his damnedest to try to protect pedophiles and himself from scandal rather than
do the right thing (like Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh) and have the pedophile priests tossed.
He is a man of low moral fibre, but has an important job within the Church.

How does this not give cognative dissonace to you?!

Again, you're talking revenge and humiliation - not putting someone to good use. If Cardinal Law's skills are best suited for the bureaucracy of the Curia, then that is where he is put to best use.

What would you do for all the pedophile priests? Let's say we had an indisputable test
for such priests. Let's say there were a 100 such priests in America that abused children
in their past.

What would you do with them?

I don't get it - you accuse the Church of being bloodthirsty with the Inquisition; now it's not bloodthirsty enough for you?

JUST A BLOODY MINUTE! How can you dare compare the two? The Church was parcel to
the systematic torture of 1000s of people on the basis of their faith alone. That was
bloodthirstyness. The dismissal of pedophile priests and those bishops who knowingly
harbored them is not bloodthirsty. It's justice. They failed fundamentally and abysmally
in their vocation. They do not deserve to have increasingly diminishing funds spent
on them.

I'm appalled what the Bishops and priests involved did. I'm appalled if there are still priests who are being protected from the law by the Church on this issue. I'm not appalled, however, that Church does not have a permanent vendetta against them as many people do.

It's not a vendetta, LH. It's justice. A person who protects pedophiles such that they
can repeatedly reoffend deserves having the book thrown at them. If the law of the
land is unable to do that, the the Church -- as a bastion of morality -- should
do it from within.

They have not done this with Bernard Law. He lives better than 95% of his flock.
This is unjust. The fact that you cannot see that makes me think that you have contracted
Ivanhoe-itus or something.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Excommunication is not dismissal. Nor is it punishment. It is a medicinal penalty intended to cause the person to return to the Church.

Dismissal and return are opposites in my book. If excommunication is not dismissal,
then how can he return?

While I fully understand the Church's stance on the remova ...[text shortened]... u cannot see that makes me think that you have contracted
Ivanhoe-itus or something.

Nemesio[/b]

Dismissal and return are opposites in my book. If excommunication is not dismissal, then how can he return?

In my view, dismissal is a permanent state of removal - like being fired from a job, evicted from a house etc. It isn't something temporary and contingent like excommunication.

Why shouldn't he receive his salary and, more significantly
his pension which he earned through years of faithful service.

As a matter of principle, I don't think priests should receive salaries and pensions. In any case, this priest has been promised a pension. I believe his Bishop should uphold that promise.

He was told that, if he were to return, it would be in a forced retirement.

I disagree with the Bishop here. If this priest were to return, I'd be willing to take it up with his Bishop.

So there [b]are indeed ways of absolving a vocation.[/b]

No - a decree of nullity says that there never was a valid marriage ("vocation" as you use it in this context) in the first place. A valid marriage cannot be "absolved".

Furthermore, I'm not talking about dismissing him from the Church family, so stop setting up this strawman: if he makes a confession, let him receive the Sacraments. I am all for his maintaining a spiritual communion with the Church.

You explicitly said that he should be "shunned" by his family. That smacked of revenge to me - I just pointed it out.

So, his being appointed to the Basilica in Rome hardly represents a recognition by the Church that he failed.

What about his being removed from the active episcopacy?

Let me ask you this: if he were a pedophile himself (and I am not saying he is), but the statues of limitations had run out such that he could not be prosecuted, would you approve of his position?

My gut reaction would be to say no, as my gut reaction is not to approve of his position as things stand. But, as I said before, it doesn't mean I cannot see the other side of the argument. By all accounts, Cardinal Law was an able administrator (moving molesting priests around notwithstanding) and there are areas where the Church needs able administrators.

I seem to recall that you were arguing that his position was titular and not really much of job. I could be wrong about this, but are you saying that he has a top job now?

I said he was "out of commission" - not in a position to cause harm similar to the one he caused in the past. I could be wrong about the Curial job here. I thought the Baslica was a titular episcopacy. If it isn't, and it's a full-time responsibility, then I still think it's a job for a good administrator - and I certainly cannot run a Basilica in the Vatican (think of all the visitors and maintenance).

Do you not see the problem here? The man is clearly a self-absorbed power monger. He did his damnedest to try to protect pedophiles and himself from scandal rather than do the right thing (like Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh) and have the pedophile priests tossed. He is a man of low moral fibre, but has an important job within the Church.
How does this [b]not give cognative dissonace to you?![/b]

It isn't clear to me that the man is a self-absorbed power monger and it isn't clear to me that he has low moral fibre. Every profile I've read of him paints a complex picture of a person with many virtues and many serious faults.

Why does it not give me cognitive dissonance? Because I don't expect my Church to be a Church of saints - I know it is a Church of sinners.

What would you do for all the pedophile[sic] priests?

Molesting priests. And that depends on what their particular skills are. If they cannot be put in a position where they cannot hurt any more children, then I would force them into retirement at a monastery somewhere. All of this is contingent on their still not being prosecutable under the law - if they are, then I would turn them over to the authorities.

The dismissal of pedophile priests and those bishops who knowingly harbored them is not bloodthirsty. It's justice... person who protects pedophiles such that they can repeatedly reoffend deserves having the book thrown at them. If the law of the land is unable to do that, the the Church -- [b]as a bastion of morality -- should do it from within.[/b]

I thought you'd use the word "justice".

In any case, I disagree - I don't believe the Church is in the justice business. That is the domain of the Government and God. The Church has a responsibility to own up to its mistakes, to make restitution (in whatever manner possible) for its crimes, to help the victims lead normal lives (to the extent possible) and to take steps to prevent similar incidents in the future. It isn't in the punishments business. It's in the forgiveness business.

They have not done this with Bernard Law. He lives better than 95% of his flock. This is unjust.

Murderers in US prisons live better than 95% of the world's population. That is as unjust. For me the solution (and true justice) is in improving the conditions of the remaining 95%.

.

..... and some hardliners just keep on hammering on the "fact" that the Roman-Catholic Faith is all about fear and punishment ......