RCC bans ordination of Gays and supporters..

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Are you saying that a principal who finds a teacher abusing children
should keep the abuser on the payroll? That's absurd!

And there lies the problem with your view - you're still talking about jobs and payrolls as though the priesthood were simply another job. That may be true in the denominations you're used to - but that is simply no ...[text shortened]... people should be given the chance to make a positive contribution in whatever capacity they can.[/b]

Being a *member* of a church may be loosely comparable to citizenship (although it still falls short), but being a priest is a special position of privilege. Why can't an offending priest be stripped of their rank but they can remain a member of the church without any title? Failing that, you'd expect that at the very least they could be transferred to a role where they're not endangering any more children.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm sorry - I'd rather [b]my Church were a loving and forgiving Church rather than a vindictive Church (funny - if we were talking about the Inquisition, I think it would be you advocating this position). I'd rather my Church be one that is willing to give its members the chance to repent and have a second chance*. The Church has a respo ...[text shortened]... sibility to provide for the welfare (material and spiritual) of its members in every way it can.[/b]

I've really thougth about what you've wrote, but I cannot bring myself to agree, and
here is why.

Let's imagine that the principal of a Roman Catholic high school knew about the
abuses by other teachers within his/her school. Or, let's say an organist/liturgist
knew that one of the lectors under his/her charge was abusing.

Would you think it appropriate for the Church to keep either of them under payroll?

The Church is both a spiritual institution and a business. They are separate aspects,
both of which are required for individual churches to function, as well as the hierarchy.

I have no problem with the Church giving Bernard Law a second chance in the spiritual
realm; if he wants to make a good confession, do his penance, I have no objection to
his receiving the Sacraments, no matter how sinful he has been in the past. The Church
should be in the 'spiritual business' of forgiveness.

But, as for keeping Law on the payroll, that is unacceptable. The Church would never
keep the principal or organist listed above on the payroll, and justly so. Why
should it extend this bizarre courtesy to a priest who failed in the simplest of duties
to protect the children of his flock?

Nemesio

Originally posted by karnachz
Failing that, you'd expect that at the very least they could be transferred to a role where they're not endangering any more children.

That is what's happening at the present. But, according to Nemesio, that's not enough.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I've really thougth about what you've wrote, but I cannot bring myself to agree, and
here is why.

Let's imagine that the principal of a Roman Catholic high school knew about the
abuses by other teachers within his/her school. Or, let's say an organist/liturgist
knew that one of the lectors under his/her charge was abusing.

Would you think it ap ...[text shortened]... a priest who failed in the simplest of duties
to protect the children of his flock?

Nemesio

I don't know how we can carry on a meaningful conversation as long as you continue to view the priesthood as just another job (as the example of the principal and teacher shows).

An acquaintance of mine recently asked me the difference between a 'job' and a 'vocation'. My reply was - a job is what you do; a vocation is who you are. Catholic priesthood is a vocation, not a job.

That is why I brought up the analogy of citizenship (I think the analogy of the joint family or clan is even better - but that analogy wouldn't work as well outside the Asian cultural context). 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).

You think of the Catholic Church as both a spiritual institution and a "business". I'm sorry - I don't see it in that dualistic manner (and pray that no Catholic would). The corporeal activity and structure of the Church reflects the spiritual realities it believes in - they cannot be divorced in the manner you have suggested. The Church is no more a non-profit "business" than a family is.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I don't know how we can carry on a meaningful conversation as long as you continue to view the priesthood as just another job (as the example of the principal and teacher shows).
Read it a bit closer...the teacher and principals were examples of what happens to those who have just another job with the church, to show that the church knows how it should act. This bringing the question of why priests are given a second chance when they fail miserably and irreparably at something they were charged by the church, and apparently God, to do, whereas the teacher, who just decided to take on the simple job of teaching children will lose his/her job for a failure that, while horrendous, didn't necessarily interfere with his/her job duties.
...
The Church is no more a non-profit "business" than a family is.
But I do not give my father money on a regular basis that he then gives to people that he feels needs it, after using some of the money to pay for his house and upkeep of his office. Nor do any of my siblings.

Originally posted by echecero
[b]I don't know how we can carry on a meaningful conversation as long as you continue to view the priesthood as just another job (as the example of the principal and teacher shows).
Read it a bit closer...the teacher and principals were examples of what happens to those who have just another job with the church, to show that the church knows how it [ ...[text shortened]... sing some of the money to pay for his house and upkeep of his office. Nor do any of my siblings.[/b]

Your first point is a repitition of Nemesio's. My response is that the priesthood is fundamentally different from being a teacher at a school.

Here's an analogy that might make it clearer: if your gardener does a bad job, you can fire him. But if your son does a bad job at gardening (even if he does get paid for it), the best you can do is stop him gardening. You can't throw him out of the house for that.

Your second point is a non-sequitur. Your family may not work on the principle you've enumerated, but I know lots of families that do. In any case, it's irrelevant. The money that one family member gives to another for the latter's upkeep is not a "salary" for work done - thinking of it in those terms simply demeans the value of family relationships.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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).

I don't know of any citizen that gets a $12,000 monthly welfare check.

http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_cardinal_law_has_new_position.html


Or even a $4900 monthly one, "the same salary granted other Vatican cardinals."

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Romes_new_cardinal_sin.htm

Granted, it must "cover Law's expenses as well as the cost of a car and driver and his household staff."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't know of any citizen that gets a $12,000 monthly welfare check.

http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_cardinal_law_has_new_position.html


Or even a $4900 monthly one, "the same salary granted other Vatican cardinals."

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Romes_new_cardinal_sin.htm

Granted, it must ...[text shortened]... "cover Law's expenses as well as the cost of [b]a car and driver and his household staff."[/b]

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?

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?

My point is that you're full of crap if you're claiming that providing for his welfare necessitates providing him with a car, driver, a maid staff and several thousand dollars a month. If you're not claiming this, then how do you justify the church spending its funds to provide him with this luxurious lifestyle?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
My point is that you're full of crap if you're claiming that providing for his welfare necessitates providing him with a car, driver, a maid staff and several thousand dollars a month. If you're not claiming this, then how do you justify the church spending its funds to provide him with this luxurious lifestyle?

I'm not claiming that, in Cardinal Law's case, the Church is providing for just his welfare necessities. I said that the Church has a responsibility to do so; it must not abandon any priest to fend for himself.

EDIT: I'm not justifying the action of the Church in keeping Cardinal Law in the Curia. He should've been suspended or asked to resign IMO. However, I do understand that he has exceptional organisational skills and there are areas where those skills can still be put to positive use. So, I understand both sides of the equation - even if I disagree with the final action taken. In any case, I see the question of what should be done with Law very differently from Nemesio.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not claiming that, in Cardinal Law's case, the Church is providing for just his welfare necessities. I said that the Church has a responsibility to do so; it must not abandon any priest to fend for himself.

How do you justify the church providing him funds, taken from donations and offerings, to provide him with such a luxurious lifestlye?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How do you justify the church providing him funds, taken from donations and offerings, to provide him with such a luxurious lifestlye?

For one thing - it isn't a particularly luxurious lifestyle. 4,000 euros is not a lot between four or five people.

For another thing - rightly or wrongly, he does have work to do in the Church. These resources help him do it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
For one thing - it isn't a particularly luxurious lifestyle. 4,000 euros is not a lot between four or five people.

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

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.

First, they aren't maid staff - they're religious sisters.

Second, people who manage a car, driver and "maids" usually have an income substantially above $5000 a month.

Third, if the work you do requires these resources, then they cannot be classed as "luxuries".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, they aren't maid staff - they're religious sisters.

Second, people who manage a car, driver and "maids" usually have an income substantially above $5000 a month.

Third, if the work you do requires these resources, then they cannot be classed as "luxuries".

I didn't say they were true luxuries.