Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "1% of priests have done evil things, so they're ALL evil and hypocrites. " Actually, that number is higher, around 4%. >>> 1%, 4% - I don't know what the actual number is. But I've heard it said by Catholics that the number is no higher than in the population in general. Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that this is true (ignoring for the moment what effect the forced celibacy of the priesthood might do to somebody). The way the Church has historically systematically protected offending priests is appauling. And this goes far beyond something that's happening locally within a single diocese. Among other things, there's the special place in New Mexico that priests from across the country with "behavioral problems" were sent to be "reformed," many of whom would later be returned to different parishes to find more victims. This indicates culpability far beyond poor decisions being made locally. As a non-Catholic, I've known that this has been going on for 20 years. And this isn't from any special study on the matter - it was known to me just as an ordinary American that pays moderate attention to current events. As such, I find it hard to believe that this was not generally known within the membership of the Catholic church. That being the case, why did not more members stand up and insist that this be changed? Why did people not refuse to put money in the collection basket until they were assured that their money was not being used to employ child molesters? For some reason, it simply wasn't a priority for the church or its membership to address this issue until they were forced to do so through civil lawsuits. It's been said here that priests are just men, and more specifically, sinners just like the rest of us. But they are certainly treated with more respect than the common man. It's not like a priest is believed to be just a guy that took some classes so that he knows how to do his job - there's the real sense that he is somehow closer to God than the rest of us. And even if chapter and verse can be quoted to say that this is not the official position of the Church, I think it's undeniable that a lot of people view priests in this fashion. I think this is the explanation of why laypeople who were involved in or at least were aware of these unfortunate situations remained silent for so many years. And I can't help but wonder that if Christianity is the one, true religion of God, and that the Catholic Church is the one, true custodian and manifestation of that religion on Earth, how such a situation could go on for so long and probably would have gone on indefinitely if it were not for the intervention of civil, secular government.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 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. >>> When a new Pope is elected (or "discovered" or whatever the literal term used), do all bishops vote on the matter, or only cardinal bishops? If the latter, then it would seem to imply that the term "cardinal" is much more than merely honorific and actually conveys increased authority.
Originally Posted By SuperDry And if Cardinal is just an honorific term applied to other ranks, is it possible to have a Cardinal Dalmatian?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Cut CM some slack -- he's a newbie Catholic and he is excited about his Church. I'm happy for him... >>> One thing he should be aware of (if he's not already aware) is that many life-long Catholics have a very special view of enthusiastic, knowledgeable converts. Although most of what cmpaley says here might be taught to Catholics that were brought up in the faith, I suspect that most of the specifics are forgotten much like the specifics of most other things were were taught as we grew up - the important thing about education is that the general concepts remain with us. I've heard it said that when life-long Catholics encounter someone that can cite chapter and verse from the Catechism on a particular subject (and especially when they do so uninvited) that the reaction is along the lines of "Oh brother - here it comes!" Of course, the above doesn't apply to what cmpaley says here, as several of us have specifically invited him to share his knowledge. At least for me, it's provided a rather unique opportunity to learn about the Catholic Church that I otherwise might not have had.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>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.<< Agreed. It does more harm than good. >>many life-long Catholics have a very special view of enthusiastic, knowledgeable converts. << That's true. I wasn't surprised to hear cmpaley was a converted Catholic. I'm not saying that as an insult - my Grandfather was a convert. But most life-long Catholics don't have quite the, uh, "passion" that you've exhibited here. >>Sounds like Liberty Belle has done lots of SELFLESS stuff...<< Thank you Mr X! Now let's hope God shares your viewpoint of it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"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.<< First, I'm not trying to "paper over" anything. What you are refusing to understand is that Bishop Jones in Diocese A cannot to anything about what goes on with Bishop Doe over in Diocese B. Under Canon Law, all Bishops are of equal rank. Multiple Bishops cannot tell an individual Bishop what to do in running his Diocese. The USCCB or all Bishops worldwide are actually limited. Second, in terms of governing the Church, it is the College of Bishops in union with the Pope. As to what Cardinal are about...they do enjoy a special dignity and authority because of their relationship to the Pope. Today, they primarily are created in order to elect a pope. They also help the Pope in governing the Church. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with that some of the Cardinals have allowed scandal such as this to exist in their dioceses. That doesn't however, undo anything taught by the Church. >>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.<< In a sense only. The Pope certainly COULD remove Mahony if he believed it would be beneficial. That he, or JP2, hasn't would indicate that he thinks it would do more harm than good. >>"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.<< Actually, this isn't quite true. The more traditionalist orders are bringing people in in droves while the more modern liturgy is loving people in droves. The uber-traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (which is considered to be in schism) and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter celebrate Masses that are VERY well attended...and they are using the old Traditional Latin Mass rite. >>"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<< I don't buy the distinction.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>1%, 4% - I don't know what the actual number is. But I've heard it said by Catholics that the number is no higher than in the population in general. Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that this is true (ignoring for the moment what effect the forced celibacy of the priesthood might do to somebody). The way the Church has historically systematically protected offending priests is appauling. And this goes far beyond something that's happening locally within a single diocese. Among other things, there's the special place in New Mexico that priests from across the country with "behavioral problems" were sent to be "reformed," many of whom would later be returned to different parishes to find more victims. This indicates culpability far beyond poor decisions being made locally.<< If that's so, then we're talking about a major problem. The solution, in MY opinion is simple: Inquisition. Those who are fould guilty should be permanently removed from pastoral duties and given the option of being laicized (all priestly faculties removed) and required to turn themselves in to the civil authorities or placed in cloister under intensive spiritual direction where they can still exercise their priestly powers (to offer Mass, hear confession, etc.) but within the context of a religious community. >>As a non-Catholic, I've known that this has been going on for 20 years. And this isn't from any special study on the matter - it was known to me just as an ordinary American that pays moderate attention to current events. As such, I find it hard to believe that this was not generally known within the membership of the Catholic church. That being the case, why did not more members stand up and insist that this be changed? Why did people not refuse to put money in the collection basket until they were assured that their money was not being used to employ child molesters? For some reason, it simply wasn't a priority for the church or its membership to address this issue until they were forced to do so through civil lawsuits.<< First, the Church doesn't knowingly start out with the intent to "employ child molesters." Truth is, most of the victims were post-pubescent boys, not little kids. That absolutely does NOT make it any less bad, but it certainly makes the underlying issue different. I firmly believe that ANYONE who is not actually going to take into account the rigors of consecrated celibacy and truly commit to live by it should not become a priest. That includes men who think that priests should be able to get married or "gay" men who think that they should be able to become priests and still be actively gay. One of the requirements of the priesthood is celibacy. >>It's been said here that priests are just men, and more specifically, sinners just like the rest of us. But they are certainly treated with more respect than the common man. It's not like a priest is believed to be just a guy that took some classes so that he knows how to do his job - there's the real sense that he is somehow closer to God than the rest of us. And even if chapter and verse can be quoted to say that this is not the official position of the Church, I think it's undeniable that a lot of people view priests in this fashion. I think this is the explanation of why laypeople who were involved in or at least were aware of these unfortunate situations remained silent for so many years.<< Actually, while priests are indeed just men, they DO have special powers that ordinary guys don't. Only a valid ordained Catholic (or Orthodox) Priest can offer Holy Mass. only a validly ordained Catholic (or Orthodox) priest can hear confessions and absolve penitents. Those are things that are precious to us as Catholics, so those who can give us those things are certainly treated with respect. It also hurts that much worse when one of those men betrays their office by violating the people entrusted to their spiritual care. >>And I can't help but wonder that if Christianity is the one, true religion of God, and that the Catholic Church is the one, true custodian and manifestation of that religion on Earth, how such a situation could go on for so long and probably would have gone on indefinitely if it were not for the intervention of civil, secular government.<< The Church only has the guarantee to never teach error relative to faith and morals (infallibility) but nothing ever says that the people within her hierarchy would be incapable of sin (impeccability).
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I've heard it said that when life-long Catholics encounter someone that can cite chapter and verse from the Catechism on a particular subject (and especially when they do so uninvited) that the reaction is along the lines of "Oh brother - here it comes!"<< It's not like I have it memorized. The internet sometimes makes us appear smarter than we are. I know the general concepts and some of the important terms, I plug them in where I need answers and voila! There they are. >>Of course, the above doesn't apply to what cmpaley says here, as several of us have specifically invited him to share his knowledge. At least for me, it's provided a rather unique opportunity to learn about the Catholic Church that I otherwise might not have had.<< I'm glad I could be of *some* service.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Those who abuse the innocent are in for a much worse and intolerable Hell than those who skip out on Mass.*** See, now here is where you make no sense at all. IF you believe all that stuff about heaven being perfect and wonderful, you must ALSO believe that hell is the opposite. Eternally horrible, painful, whatever. Plus, Satan is totally evil right? Why would the embodiment of evil care what sins you committed. Wouldn't he joyful torture each and every soul equally? To assume that he is justly meting out punishments based on HOW BAD you were in life, would seem to indicate that Satan is a just and fair being. Hardly different from god, then. You have a strange view of the afterlife, even for a Catholic!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< >>I've heard it said that when life-long Catholics encounter someone that can cite chapter and verse from the Catechism on a particular subject (and especially when they do so uninvited) that the reaction is along the lines of "Oh brother - here it comes!"<< It's not like I have it memorized. The internet sometimes makes us appear smarter than we are. >>> I somehow feel like you're a kindred spirit! <<< I know the general concepts and some of the important terms, I plug them in where I need answers and voila! There they are. >>> I think you're not giving yourself enough credit. I could have the Catechism sitting next to my keyboard and Google at the ready and still not have nearly the insight to cannon Catholicism that my interactions with you have provided. <<< >>Of course, the above doesn't apply to what cmpaley says here, as several of us have specifically invited him to share his knowledge. At least for me, it's provided a rather unique opportunity to learn about the Catholic Church that I otherwise might not have had.<< I'm glad I could be of *some* service. >>> Actually, I think you have provided a GREAT service to your religion and to your faith, let alone to me as a reader of your posts.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>required to turn themselves in to the civil authorities or placed in cloister under intensive spiritual direction where<<< You really believe that rapist priests are above reproach and above the law, don't you? I can't believe I just read this! What right does the church have to protect it's own from criminal justice? (the answer you're looking for is NONE) This sentiment is a living example of what superdry was talking about, putting priests on a pedestal and considering them "sacred" no matter what horrible acts they commit.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Truth is, most of the victims were post-pubescent boys, not little kids. That absolutely does NOT make it any less bad, but it certainly makes the underlying issue different.<<< Rape is rape. Besides, isn't homosexuality a horrible sin anyway? So, horrible sin AND a felony. Nice combo. But hey, let's do an inquisition and give them the OPTION of being cloistered. We wouldn't want to subject those most holy friends of ours to that REGULAR criminal justice system if we don't have to, right? The fact that such statements are being made EVEN NOW, after all the scandals that have been revealed, makes me realize that the coverup has barely been uncovered at all!
Originally Posted By Mr X But at least they go to church every sunday. That should spare them a few lashes down in hell, at least. Satan checks that "mortal sin" list, after all, and he'll have to give them some slack for avoiding THAT mortal sin at least. Poor Liberty Belle will have no such reprieve though! Yeah, skipping church on sunday and rape. Sounds about equal to me!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The fact that such statements are being made EVEN NOW, after all the scandals that have been revealed, makes me realize that the coverup has barely been uncovered at all! >>> [Warning: What I'm about to say is knowingly being made in response to but outside the context of the intent of the quoted text] One has to wonder what the reality is in other countries with a stronger Catholic influence than in the US and how it will be dealt with in the future.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>skipping church on sunday and rape. Sounds about equal to me! << and >>you mean premarital sex?<< LOL!!
