Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"1% of priests have done evil things, so they're ALL evil and hypocrites. " Actually, that number is higher, around 4%. And it's not just that they are doing something bad, but that the hierarchy is covering it up, or doing nothing about it. That is what makes the rest of them evil hypocrites.<< If by "covering it up" you mean not revealing what is said in the context of Sacramental Confession, sorry, that's not covering anything up. A GOOD confessor would tell the penitent to turn himself is for a crime of this magnitude. If I understand the power of the keys correctly, that can be made a condition for absolution. As to not doing anything about it, those bishops who simply move priests to other parishes instead of removing them from pastoral duties, you have a good point. I agree that those bishops are culpable of being an accomplice to not only a crime but the mortal sin of another as well as abrogating their pastoral responsibilities. All around a very bad thing. That doesn't, however, make the entire hierarchy bad. In fact, you'll find that the more orthodox dioceses where Church discipline is actually a part of how things are run, you don't have these problems. I just hope that there will be something left of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles before Mahony retires in five years.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If by "covering it up" you mean not revealing what is said in the context of Sacramental Confession" No, by covering up, I mean doing nothing about it, tranferring these priests to new parishes over and over again as if nothing were wrong, and refusing to assist prosecutors who are trying to control this vicious scourge. I would say the entire hierarchy is culpable. Especially when you get cardinals involved. There is a reason the Catholics are losing all these lawsuits in the multiple millions of dollars. In San Francisco, most of the Catholic churches are shutting down. Combined with lower and lower attendance to a flock who doesn't feel the church speaks to their needs, with a set of buildings that need earthquake retrofit, combined with a lack of funds due to lawsuit payouts over priest molestations, church after church has shuttered. Many are sold off to schools or other institutions. Catholicism, compared to what it once was in San Francisco, is rapidly disappearing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If by "covering it up" you mean not revealing what is said in the context of Sacramental Confession" No, by covering up, I mean doing nothing about it, tranferring these priests to new parishes over and over again as if nothing were wrong, and refusing to assist prosecutors who are trying to control this vicious scourge. I would say the entire hierarchy is culpable. Especially when you get cardinals involved. There is a reason the Catholics are losing all these lawsuits in the multiple millions of dollars. In San Francisco, most of the Catholic churches are shutting down. Combined with lower and lower attendance to a flock who doesn't feel the church speaks to their needs, with a set of buildings that need earthquake retrofit, combined with a lack of funds due to lawsuit payouts over priest molestations, church after church has shuttered. Many are sold off to schools or other institutions. Catholicism, compared to what it once was in San Francisco, is rapidly disappearing.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Schools moving into facilities that need retro-fitting. Interesting comcept.
Originally Posted By jonvn They have the money to retrofit them. It's not public schools, but like art universities.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Attendance at Mass is to be present at the most sublime event in the history of the universe, namely, the sacrifice of Christ.<<< Oh, really? And what about at those masses presided over by those child molester, rapist priests...where THOSE "the most sublime event in the history...etc..." Or where they nothing but sin personified. Was Christ present THERE? And did people receive Christ properly in the communion they took from the rapists? How do you justify one against the other?
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>As to not doing anything about it, those bishops who simply move priests to other parishes instead of removing them from pastoral duties, you have a good point. I agree that those bishops are culpable of being an accomplice to not only a crime but the mortal sin of another as well as abrogating their pastoral responsibilities<<< So, are you saying THEY committed a "mortal sin" as well? Or is covering up the crimes of a rapist less "bad" than skipping church on sunday?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>Attendance at Mass is to be present at the most sublime event in the history of the universe, namely, the sacrifice of Christ.<<< Oh, really?<< Absolutely! >>And what about at those masses presided over by those child molester, rapist priests...where THOSE "the most sublime event in the history...etc..."<< A Mass, offered validly, is the Mass. A valid mass contains the proper matter (bread, wine, ordained priest or Bishop), the proper form and the proper intent (which is merely to offer a Mass). >>Or where they nothing but sin personified.<< There is no such thing as sin personified. There are sinNERS. Those priests are in one hell of a lot of trouble if they don't repent and make all the reparations humanly possible for thie actions. Worse so because they did such heinous acts while a priest. >>Was Christ present THERE? And did people receive Christ properly in the communion they took from the rapists?<< Yes because the confection of the Sacraments does not rely on the state of the minister confecting them. A sacrament is confexted "ex opere operato," or "in the working of the work." As long as the proper matter, form and intent are present, then the sacrament is properly confected. >>How do you justify one against the other?<< I don't.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>As to not doing anything about it, those bishops who simply move priests to other parishes instead of removing them from pastoral duties, you have a good point. I agree that those bishops are culpable of being an accomplice to not only a crime but the mortal sin of another as well as abrogating their pastoral responsibilities<<< So, are you saying THEY committed a "mortal sin" as well?<< Yes. >>Or is covering up the crimes of a rapist less "bad" than skipping church on sunday?<< That's now what I said. A mortal sin must, by definition, involve three things: 1. Grave moral matter. 2. Knowledge 3. Consent It is absolutely grave moral matter to be an accomplice to the grave sin of another. It is also grave moral matter to blatantly disregard one of the ten commandments. Knowing this and willingly doing it is where the sin becomes really mortal because it is essentially saying to God, "I know this is wrong and I know you don't want me to do it but I'm going to do it anyway, so there!" It's turning one's back on God. Now, do I believe that the punishments in Hell are the same for people who willfully skip Mass and those who hurt innocent children (or, in these cases, post-pubescent teens)? Absolutely NOT. Those who abuse the innocent are in for a much worse and intolerable Hell than those who skip out on Mass. Also, those priests who did such things and then offered Mass (which requires them to receive Communion) commit sacrelige and blasphemy (it is a sacrelige and a blasphemy to receive communion in the state of mortal sin). People who do such things are in deep trouble indeed. Now, if it were me, and I were the confessor of these men, I would require that they turn themselves in to the authorities as a condition of absolution, if that were part of the power of the keys. I'll have to ask my priest about that tonight.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I would say the entire hierarchy is culpable. Especially when you get cardinals involved.<< Seems to me that you would considering your animosity toward religion and religious people. But leaving that aside, a Bishop can only be held responsible for what happens in his own Diocese. The Church's hierarchy, while rather byzantine, has a really short chain of command structure. For most Catholics, it kinda works like this: Priest/Deacon --> Bishop --> Pope If you live in a large archdiocese, like I do, then it's like this: Priest/Deacon --> Auxiliary Bishop --> Archibishop --> Pope And it doesn't work on a business model. The Pope can't just up and remove a Bishop or an Archbishop without a good reason. Under Canon Law, I'm sure he could, but it would wreak havoc in that diocese/archdiocese and do major harm to the Church in that area. Here in LA, those of us who hold to orthodox Catholicism are basicaly waiting for His Eminence, Cardinal Mahony, to turn 70 so the Pope can retire him. >>There is a reason the Catholics are losing all these lawsuits in the multiple millions of dollars.<< No doubt. What happened should not have happened. >>In San Francisco, most of the Catholic churches are shutting down. Combined with lower and lower attendance to a flock who doesn't feel the church speaks to their needs, with a set of buildings that need earthquake retrofit, combined with a lack of funds due to lawsuit payouts over priest molestations, church after church has shuttered. Many are sold off to schools or other institutions.<< That's a real shame. Before I was Catholic, I'd go to mass in this beautiful Catholic parish on Geary near 25th Ave. I hope that it's not the older parishes like that that are being closed. There's a danger of parishes being sold off here in LA, too. I hope and pray that it doesn't happen to mine!
Originally Posted By DlandJB >>>Attendance at Mass is to be present at the most sublime event in the history of the universe, namely, the sacrifice of Christ.<<< Cut CM some slack -- he's a newbie Catholic and he is excited about his Church. I'm happy for him... However, I wouldn't hire him any time soon to be the public relations guy for the church...he's far too into the legalisms right now. My advice to CM - once you feel comfortable with talking about what the Church expects/requires, etc... use your own words and don't fall back on language that is off-putting. I will give the RCC credit for consistency in the reasons for its laws (although they do have that "do as I say, not as I do" public relations nightmare to get past). But when you consistently present the Church only through the stiff and seemingly "Dogma First" point of view, you are not doing the Church any favors. You can read every book in the world about being Catholic and what it means. But you have to live it for a long time before you will really understand what it is to be Catholic. Those are the people I respect still in the Church. The ones who "get it." If more of them had been around where I was, I might never have left.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Seems to me that you would considering your animosity toward religion and religious people." I'm sorry, but how many steps are there between a cardinal and the pope? And what happened to Cardinal Law? And where did he end up? Oh, at the Vatican? Right. "Pope can't just up and remove a Bishop or an Archbishop without a good reason" And you don't think child molestation or the covering up of it is good reason?
Originally Posted By cmpaley I hear ya, JB. That has more to do with my way of thinking than how I actually understand these things. Of course, my *wonderful* tendency toward scrupulosity REALLY helps. Here's the way I actually understand how things work. God made us for Him. He loves us infinitely and He wants us to love Him in return. The kind of love that we're talking about is not a warm, fuzzy feeling, but an act of the will to desire the best for the beloved. For God, that means that He wants us to be with Him for eternity. For us, that means that we want to please God. Now, since humanity's first parents screwed that up royally. And in spite of this "O necessary sin of Adan. O happy fault" business from the Exsultet (Easter Proclamation made at every Easter Vigil Mass), I'm sure that there will be a rather long line give Adam and Eve a good swift kick in the rear up in heaven. ;-) Seriously, though, because of that, we have this inborn tendency to not only fear God but avoid Him. He loves us still and provides means for us to come to Him. That's why He gave us the Catholic Church. Now, the Church is made up of humans, yes. But she is also a divinely established institution and is protected, not only from harm, but from error on things relative to getting to heaven. God wants us to love Him and that's why He gave us His laws, so we can understand how He wants us to respond to Him. Why do I go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation? Not because it's a requirement, but because I love God and want to be there with Him. I want to receive Him in Holy Communion. Why do I go to confession often? Because, in spite of my sins (which are numerous, BELIEVE me!), I want to remain in friendship with God. I know that I violate God's law all the time and I know that I get the help I need from God through the Sacraments. When I was a Lutheran, I learned a phrase: means of grace. That's what the sacraments ARE...they are the means by which God gives us grace. Why do I so ardenly defend my faith? It's not necessarily because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I used to be that way when I was a protestnat, but being Catholic is a whole other ball-game, believe me. Catholicism requires that one submit their reason to an authority that is not one's own; however, it is not unreasonable. In fact, many of the questions that I couldn't answer before are not pretty clear to me. It's all a matter of knowing what is really taught, not what people think it is or what they hear it is. I believe it is true and believe that it is the best and easiest way to make heaven. And I do want to see people go to heaven, even those who hate me. I don't wish hell upon ANYONE, not even a monster like Saddam Hussein.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Seems to me that you would considering your animosity toward religion and religious people." I'm sorry, but how many steps are there between a cardinal and the pope? << Actually, technically, that's not even relevant. ANYONE can be named pope a And what happened to Cardinal Law? And where did he end up? Oh, at the Vatican? Right.<< Yes, he's no longer a diocesan bishop. He's the rector at St. Mary Major right under the Holy Father's supervision. >>"Pope can't just up and remove a Bishop or an Archbishop without a good reason" And you don't think child molestation or the covering up of it is good reason?<< A priest who molests children should be removed from public ministry, period. Once again, IF IT WERE UP TO ME (and I have to confirm if this is possible or not), I would make absolution contingent upon turning one's self in to the authorities and offering to make restitution to the victims. Covering it up, I would say, is a pretty good reason but there may be other factors to take into account. Take the LA Archdioces as an example. Mahony's a pretty "liberal" bishop. Considering the tone of things in the Vatican right now, removing him and vacating the sede in Los Angeles which is required) would do a lot of damage, especially considering who would be likely candidates to replace him (people just as "liberal"), could do even more damage. Instead, I think the Holy Father is waiting for Mahony's mandatory retirement age to replace him with a more orthodox Archbishop who has not been trained under Mahony's tutelage. When that happens, I think the LA Archdiocese will start to have a major turnaround in terms of pastoral care and liturgy. I look forward to that day.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Actually, technically, that's not even relevant." Of course it is relevant when discussing church hierarchy, and how they are culpable. "I think the LA Archdiocese will start to have a major turnaround in terms of pastoral care and liturgy" Then it will likely lose even more members. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." If you think I or anyone else here hates you, you have a persecution complex. I do not hate you, even though you want to think that I do. I doubt anyone else here hates you, either. That would be absolutely disgusting.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Actually, technically, that's not even relevant." Of course it is relevant when discussing church hierarchy, and how they are culpable.<< Culpability means responsibility. One Bishop cannot be held accountable for what happens in another Bishop's diocese. And before you say, "BUT they're CARDINALS!" and display an utter ignorance of how Holy Orders are ranked, understand that Cardinal is a title of honor conferred upon another rank. There are only three ranks of Holy Orders: deacons, priests and bishops. Cardinal is an honorific that can be appended to any of these. Monsignor is usually bestowed upon a priest and Archbishop is just a bishop with a fancier title. In terms of rank, they are the same. You can have Cardinal Deacons, Cardinal Priests/Monsignors and Cardinal Bishops/Archbishops. Of course, the Papacy is a special case as in it is held authority over the whole Church in a special way but it not a direct "supervisory" role. It is not even akin to such a notion. HH Benedict doesn't know what's specifically going on in Los Angeles. I kinda wish he DID, however. >>"I think the LA Archdiocese will start to have a major turnaround in terms of pastoral care and liturgy" Then it will likely lose even more members. << Why? Becuase the liturgy will be tightened up to actually follow the rubrics and many of the meaningless and boring homilies will start to go away? Priests talking about the importance of confession and the sacraments. Yeah, we don't want THAT, do we? Of course, let's ignore the facts that churches where priests talk about things like that tend to draw people, not push them away.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Methinks thou dost protest too much." If you think I or anyone else here hates you, you have a persecution complex. I do not hate you, even though you want to think that I do. I doubt anyone else here hates you, either. That would be absolutely disgusting.<< Perhaps hate is a strong word. But you appear to hold people with strong religious conviction in great disdain.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Culpability means responsibility" It's a widesspread problem, and so is the covering up of it. That you are trying to paper this over is really not a very good choice on your part. As far as the cardinals are concenred, they have been involved in these scandals, and that's pretty high up on the chain. So have people from all levels. In far too many places. It is a systemic problem, and denying it in any way serves you no good. To suggest that a cardinal or the pope doesn't have authority or control over what goes on is ridiculous. While the pope doesn't know specifically what goes on in LA, he's ultimately in charge of it. "Becuase the liturgy will be tightened up" Because the church is already losing members due to its being too conservative and out of touch with the population. It's actually a much worse problem in Europe than here. If a more conservative guy comes in, that will further push the problem in that area. "But you appear to hold people with strong religious conviction in great disdain." I may hold your beliefs in disdain, but I don't hold you in disdain.
