Forgive me Father......

[Cruise Director]

......For I have sinned. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20020316/ts_nyt/as_scandal_keeps_growing__church_and_its_faithful_reel&printer=1)

It would appear that the very faith of the country may be rocking a little bit these days. People that were once considered above reproach are proving to be just as human as the rest of us.

Now, I don't want to throw stones at the Catholic Church here, and I recognize that this is a very small sampling of the leadership of the Faith, but this is outrageous. People have been traumatized and physically abused and assaulted and the Church has committed grave mistakes by trying to cover it up.

"After more cases of priests with multiple victims emerged in Dallas, Santa Fe, N.M., Fall River, Mass., and Santa Rosa, Calif., many dioceses adopted the recommendations. They called for removing priests accused of abuse from service, sending them into treatment and providing victims with counseling and pastoral care. The issue faded from the public view.

Behind the scenes, however, victims were still coming forward. Quietly, insisting that confidentiality was necessary for the victims and the accused, church lawyers settled what plaintiffs' lawyers estimate were as many as 1,000 lawsuits, paying victims anywhere from a few thousand dollars to millions each.

In what many bishops have now acknowledged was a grave mistake, the church also quietly reassigned many of the priests to new parishes."

Now, I don't want to get in to an argument about the treatment or punishment about sex offenders, but I DO want to point out that this is not the right answer. It is shameful that the Powers that Be in the Catholic Church covered up the problem instead of correcting it just to save face.

Like I said, I don't think this is a problem being faced only by the Catholics. I know the Mormons have had there share of allegations and similar scandals with their leaders here in Zion. The cases are similar in that both Organizations tried to quietly cover up the problem instead of turning the predators over to law enforcement.

It's sad that hundreds if not thousands of people have suffered through the years before the Church took action against the molesters:

"One of the most vivid signs of upheaval within the church was the editorial on Friday in "The Pilot," the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston. The editorial urged church leaders to study whether priestly celibacy rules had any link to the sexual abuse of minors. While dissident Catholic thinkers have long questioned the Vatican's adherence to celibacy and its refusal to ordain women, the latest call for a discussion of change was coming from the church newspaper published by Cardinal Law."

Thoughts?

[Smug Git]

At last, the Catholic Church of England and Wales have got some decent sort of structure in place, and particularly avoid the reassignment of priests against whom allegations are made (a big problem here too, previously).

I can't ever see them ordaining women, although married priests would not be a problem (there are already some that I know of, defectors from the Church of England (due to the CoE's ordination of women) and priests of the RC church in Greece (I think that this has something to do with the fact that the Greek Orthodox priests can be married, although I think that it has to have taken place before ordination)); additionally, there is a current rule that if a man's wife is prepared to 'put herself away' (live in a nunnery) then the husband is allowed to become a priest, I believe, married priests are not a huge theological issue (and originally, priests were allowed to marry, in any case.

Part of the problem, of course, is quite possibly malicious allegations (and in the US where damages can be large and any court case embarassing, regardless of final verdict, that could be quite believable); having a decent structure in place to deal with this stuff would make it harder for frivolous lawsuits to be worthwhile.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

My thoughts: While I can forgive the odd sex deprived priest grasping a bit of tit and ass now and then, if that tit and ass belongs to a child then the holy men should let god be their judge - ie kill them and see what happens.

[TotalAnarchy]

We have a similar problem here in the Anglican diocese of Brisbane, involving the Governor General (The highest ranking person in Australia (he can fire the PM)), who as Arch Bishop of Brisbane reputedly both covered over sex offences of Bishops and giving a minister a reference without referring to a reputed sex offence.

Its rather petty, blown out by the bullshit femnazi's and PR spin doctors having a crack at the church.

Its true that some in the church abused their priviledges. Especially some in Anglican run schools.

They should be thrown out of their positions due to their high involvement with children, and not allowed back.

Because we may forgive those that sin, but we must also look after all those in the flock.

That and personally I think anyone abusing their power by going after kids is sick, to say the least.

[estero]

Umm, am I the only one here that thinks that a married priest is a problem?

I think this because... a priest gives his life to serving God. Anyone who is married knows that married life brings along MANY MANY problems that a priest does not have right now. THese problems bring along baggage and I believe it would interrupt or affect how he performs (perhaps not the best word to use but its 9:30 am) as a priest.

He must now worry about money, the children, keeping his wife happy, etc. His life, which he dedicated to God, is no longer decidcated to God.

[Cruise Director]

I've got a little bit of a different perspective on it, Kaye. Utah is predominantly Mormon. The leaders of the local perishes, called Wards, are volunteers and usually family men. Women are not allowed to be 'Bishops' yet generally hold other postions such as primary teacher, etc. The person above the Bishops is responsible for a group of Wards, or a Stake. He is also a volunteer and a family man. The Stake President then reports to the General Authorities in Salt Lake, which I believe is a paid position and a full-time post.

With little excpetion, the heirarchy seems to work out okay. The RLDS ( Reorganized mormons ) allow women to be Bishops. I see no problem with a woman leading a flock to God.

[morgana]

<font color="lime">while i am not a fan of the christian faith, the preachers of almost all branches of it are encouraged to be family men. "be fruitful and multiply". my grandfather is a baptist minister, and his wife is involved in several church functions. if anything, they are setting an example to their parishoners by raising a family and dealing with real life while still holding to God's principles. it's very hard for me to understand how a catholic priest can counsel and give advice to their parishoners with no experience in marriage and having children. they have no idea what it's like to deal with faith in the world of today. if anything, they have their collar to hide from the harsh realities of real life.

letting priests marry is pretty much the only option they have left that will strengthen the waning faith of the catholic community.</font>

[squee]

Generally what happens during a molestation case is this:

First and immediately, the Bishop will get the priest out of the diocese. There are rehabilitation centers where priests go to deal with this sort of thing, after which, when he has receieved a "clean bill of health," he will be reassigned somewhere. There Bishop has no choice in this matter. This is because of the peculiar structure of the Church.

The Bishop, in effect, is the diocese from an economic and legal standpoint. So, when people say they have sued "The Church," it means they have brough legal action against the Bishop. From his standpoint as the administrator of a diocese--which in a place like Boston could mean a structure including millions of people, schools, churches, et cetera--it is usually easier to settle out of court and try to deal with the priest's problem. He HAS to send the priest to rehab and then reassign him for two reasons--one, if he doesn't, that priest can and will turn around and sue him (ie has happened). Two, the Church has a committment to everyone involved in the Church to stand by them no matter what they do. This is why a death row inmate gets the last rights before going to the Chair; it is also why a priest who has molested a small boy will get free psychiatric care.

What I think should happen is that the priest ought to take the brunt of the suit himself. Yes, he is supposed to be a representative of the Church, but he is considered to be "self-employed." So from several standpoints I think it is a good idea if one of these dirtbags got thrown to the wolves. But I understand why there is really no option for the Church but what they have been doing.

As far as married priests go...I don't think it will affect the rates of child molestation in any way. If a priest falls in love with someone (which does happen) he can be defrocked and continue to serve as a deacon or a layperson. In the Eastern churchs (Eastern Catholic, Russian and Greek Orthodox, etc.) there is something called the Byzantine Rite which allows for married priests (but they never become a Bishop). But in any case, I think we're dealing with a very specific psychological illness here. The only people who are pushing for married priests are the same ones pushing for gay priests, women priests, and changing the teachings on contraception, abortion, etc. It's all very political.

[rage]

well said squee, but I am wondering why you think the people who are pushing for allowing priests to be married are the same ones pushing to allow gay priests. I am interested in knowing where in the bible it says a leader of a church cannot be married. Yes, I know what Paul says about being married, but that is more a suggestion than anything else, and I wonder if this was even truly inspired by the same "God" that said, "be fruitful and multiply." Many religious leaders in the bible were married. (Look at the old testament, many religious leaders had more than one wife.)

I know the topic isn't about this, but where does the bible say that homosexuality is a sin?

[squee]

rage--
By same people I mean, in many instances, the same people, not just the same lobby or the same political party. There are certain organizations the members of which have made it their mission in life to try to convince the Church to alter its teachings on things (ie, Catholics for Free Choice), nevermind that A. The Church has its own internal reformation systems, and B. since Catholics consider the Church's teachings to be absolute truths in the same way as, say, multiplication tables, we are at best confused and at worst severely irritated when it is suggested that we can "change" them due to popular opinion or political pressure.

As far as the Bible goes--I can only speak for Catholics on this one--we do not believe in sola scriptura ("only scripture") nor justification by faith alone, but rather put a lot of stock in the Magisterium, or "teachers of the Church" (of which St. Paul was one of the first), the tradition, and the "family" that is the Church. So, while the Bible might not say something about a specific subject (for example, abortion or contraception), it does suggest that, for instance, sex is best under certain conditions (with someone with whom you are deeply committed, with the possibility of childbirth) and that once you have been convinced of this, you are obligated to God to try to attain those conditions.

You will notice that we do not attempt to force anyone to do anything--which is why I find it ludicrous that anyone should suggest that our stances on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception are equivalent to "Taliban-style" terrorism. However, since we are a public organization we reserve the right to attempt to persuade people of our beliefs. We don't even proselytize--but there's no law, manmade or otherwise, which can or should prohibit us from living our faith in public, and therefore if my beliefs say "There are reasons why homosexual relationships are less than optimal," then I should be able to talk to people I know about it. The usual Catholic way to do this is basically just to be a friend. There's a chance you might not convince someone through your example but there's a much better chance you will make things worse if you try to thump someone on the head with the Bible.

[Smug Git]

Originally posted by squee
The only people who are pushing for married priests are the same ones pushing for gay priests, women priests, and changing the teachings on contraception, abortion, etc.

I am not sure that this is true; as I say, there are already married catholic priests in any case. Aquinas was a believer in married priests, I gather. I have heard many catholics in the UK, not 'left wing', say that the chronic shortage in priests may need a change to married priests.

A priest who 'steps down' is still ontologically considered a priest (as he is even if he is excommunicated, in fact); he cannot marry in church without the pope's permission and the current pope has not authorised this in many cases, although it was fairly common before that I believe. This ontological status also explains pretty much why the church does not cast out wrongdoers very often but instead puts them away where they can do little damage (distant monasteries, like the one where the Bishop of Galway first went after it was revealed that he had a child and was 'borrowing' church money to support the child and the child's mother).

Gay priests are allowed, I am pretty sure, as long as, like other priests, they are celibate. As I understand it, it is not a sin to be a homosexual, just to act on those desires sexually.

I would say that, certainly in the UK, abortion is an issue on which catholics are pretty much unanimous (although there will be a few dissenters), and they are against it.

[rage]

Originally posted by squee
rage--
By same people I mean, in many instances, the same people, not just the same lobby or the same political party. There are certain organizations the members of which have made it their mission in life to try to convince the Church to alter its teachings on things (ie, Catholics for Free Choice), nevermind that A. The Church has its own internal reformation systems, and B. since Catholics consider the Church's teachings to be absolute truths in the same way as, say, multiplication tables, we are at best confused and at worst severely irritated when it is suggested that we can "change" them due to popular opinion or political pressure. but what if one of them proves to contradictory to the bible? what if they are found to be contradictory with one another. I am no authority on catholocism by far, so I couldnt' point out where one of the churches "absolutes" but I could give you a list longer than my arm where the bible contradicts it self, is scientifically inaccurate, or is historically inaccurate. and that is a book that is inspired by god, so I am sure there has to be some contradictions in there. Regardless, this doesn't have much to do w/ what we are talking about, so you dont have to respond to this. :)

As far as the Bible goes--I can only speak for Catholics on this one--we do not believe in sola scriptura ("only scripture") nor justification by faith alone, but rather put a lot of stock in the Magisterium, or "teachers of the Church" (of which St. Paul was one of the first), the tradition, and the "family" that is the Church. So, while the Bible might not say something about a specific subject (for example, abortion or contraception), it does suggest that, for instance, sex is best under certain conditions (with someone with whom you are deeply committed, with the possibility of childbirth) and that once you have been convinced of this, you are obligated to God to try to attain those conditions.

You will notice that we do not attempt to force anyone to do anything--which is why I find it ludicrous that anyone should suggest that our stances on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception are equivalent to "Taliban-style" terrorism. heh...now that's funny..people actually draw those lines? geez. I doubt if a majority of people agree w/ that idea.

However, since we are a public organization we reserve the right to attempt to persuade people of our beliefs. We don't even proselytize--but there's no law, manmade or otherwise, which can or should prohibit us from living our faith in public, and therefore if my beliefs say "There are reasons why homosexual relationships are less than optimal," then I should be able to talk to people I know about it. The usual Catholic way to do this is basically just to be a friend. There's a chance you might not convince someone through your example but there's a much better chance you will make things worse if you try to thump someone on the head with the Bible.

I understand that. I just want to offer one suggestion. Dont take faith blindly. Dont take your beliefs blindly. (as I am sure you haven't squee) You are right when saying there is no law against "witnessing" but if you want to be most effective, listen to what others say and believe w/ an open mind. don't just throw out things because they dont gel w/ your religion. if you want people to listen to you w/ an open mind, you better listen to them w/ an open mind. I was very close minded about the scripture and what not when I was a christian and lived at home. Then I evaluated facts, and listened w/ an opened mind, and was amazed at what I learned. I am now an athiest, and believe you me, it did not come w/ any easy change. It took 2 years of hard studying before I even decided to take the stance that I have.

Having faith is important, but having that faith based on unprovable, illogical, and scientificly and historically inaccurate things is absurd.

Now, I am not sure how what I just typed fits in with the topic, so, whoops :), though I will say that the same people, even the same groups that would push towards priests being able to marry, aren't going to necessarily want gay priests, because while many may have an open mind about priests having wifes, not near as many are going to have open minds about priests having husbands. :)

I am still curious also, as to what biblical basis that the catholic church pulls it's law of not allowing a majority of the priests to get married. Also, if the pope can pick and choose who gets married, what criteria would he pick it based on? how much he likes them? If one can, why not the others......? Something about that seems a bit fishy...

[squee]

Smug,
You raise a very interesting point: that there are undoubtedly gay priests already. Just as there are homosexuals in the military (I've met a few). But they don't "come out." So, if I think I have this idea right, what the gay rights lobby wants is not equal participation, but open participation--ie, they want to make it a point that the priest is gay.

and...

Rage,
As far as "The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church" goes, it cannot according to the Bible possibly contradict anything in the Bible. I can't quote you the verse but I think in scripture it states that Jesus told Peter whatever he said would be put into effect on earth and heaven. So, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on an issue is when he is saying "This is the absolute truth." But to my knowledge this has never happened outside of theophilosophical arenas (ie, when people tell you the Church tried to use its teaching against Galileo, they don't really know their history).

Honestly, I am not entirely too concerned with what the Bible has to say about scientific truths and things of that nature. What Catholics generally get from the Bible is 1. Jesus died for everyone, and 2. It's a Good Idea to follow Jesus's example. In very general terms this means that in every decision you make in life, there is one choice that means serving God, and one choice that usually amounts to serving yourself. This all implies a certain lifestyle you ought to live if you want to serve God. And the idea is that if you choose God, He will honor your request and take you up to Heaven, and if you choose yourself--he will also honor that request, made of your own free will, and at the end of days leave you to your own devices (you, floating in a void, all alone, with yourself--the Catholic conception of Hell).

Whew. Theology lesson aside, you will notice a couple of things about the above. We do not derive everything from the Bible like the fundamentalists do. It is the basis of our philosophy, a history lesson, and the first recordings of the Magisterium, which were continued by Aquinas et al.. Most of the tenets can be restated without referring to the Christian God (example: the Declaration of Independence's "Natural God") and so I can definately use logical arguments without asking someone to believe my theology.

Finally...you're right, it's not all the same people. What I mean is, it is a few very specific people. As in, I could provide you with a list of names of the most vocal (some would say "virulent"). Ted Turner and Bill Gates top the list.