Ongoing religious scandals

robindch

Ratzinger fires a bishop, possibly for "administrative" reasons. He's the fourth bishop to be fired in the last year (none of which were fired for protecting child abusers).

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-fires-bishop-507724-Jul2012/

The Journal wrote:

THE POPE HAS fired a 52-year-old Slovak bishop for apparently mismanaging his diocese in a rare show of papal power over his bishops.

Usually when bishops run into trouble — either for alleged moral lapses or management problems — they are persuaded by the Vatican to resign. But Pope Benedict XVI has become increasingly willing to forcibly remove bishops who refuse to step down, sacking three others in the last year alone. His willingness to do so raises questions about whether he would take the same measures against bishops who covered up for sexually abusive priests. So far he has not.

In the most notable case to date, Benedict fired Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba, Australia, last year after he called for the church to consider ordaining women and married men. He also removed a Congolese bishop for management problems in his diocese and an Italian one in May for similar reasons. Today the Vatican said Benedict had “relieved from pastoral care” Bishop Robert Bezak of Trnava, Slovakia.

No reason was given, but Italian news reports suggested administrative problems were to blame and Slovak news reports quoted Bezak as saying he thought his criticism of his predecessor may have had a role. Bishops normally hand in their resignation when they turn 75 years old, their customary retirement age. The exercise of the pope’s ability to fire a bishop has important implications, particularly concerning bishops who mishandle pedophile priests.

In the face of U.S. lawsuits seeking to hold the pope ultimately responsible for abusive priests, the Holy See has argued that bishops are largely masters of their dioceses and that the pope doesn’t really control them. The Vatican has thus sought to limit its own liability, arguing that the pope doesn’t exercise sufficient control over the bishops to be held responsible for their bungled response to priests who rape children. The ability of the pope to actively fire bishops, and not just passively accept their resignations, would seem to undercut the Vatican’s argument of a hands-off pope.

Jeffrey Anderson, who is seeking to hold the Holy See liable for a case of an abusive priest in Oregon, said the Vatican was trying to have it both ways. “They will remove, using their canon laws and their own protocols, bishops, priests and clerics for any reasons — for theological or any other reasons — but when it comes to sexual misconduct, they never use those same standards,” he said. Even the most well-known case, that of Cardinal Bernard Law, ended when Law offered his resignation after the sex abuse scandal exploded in his Boston archdiocese 2002. Law subsequently was named archpriest of one of the Vatican’s basilicas in Rome, St. Mary Major.

That said, things may be changing: The Vatican’s sex crimes prosecutor, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, warned in February that bishops could face possible church sanctions for malicious or fraudulent negligence unless they follow the Vatican’s rules on handling sexually abusive priests. But he acknowledged that such bishop accountability needed to be “further developed”.

jank

UDP wrote: »

How can that priest remain part of such an organisation rotten to the core. It beggers belief.

Best way to change an organisation is from within, not the outside.
Personally I think the Irish Catholic church should abdicate from Rome. Clear out at the top and then bring in changes with the help of lay people, women priests etc..

The current pope is living in the middle ages with his policies.

fitz0

jank wrote: »

UDP wrote: »

How can that priest remain part of such an organisation rotten to the core. It beggers belief.

Best way to change an organisation is from within, not the outside.
Personally I think the Irish Catholic church should abdicate from Rome. Clear out at the top and then bring in changes with the help of lay people, women priests etc..

The current pope is living in the middle ages with his policies.

So become, in essence, the Irish catholic-but-really-protestant church?

Cossax

fitz0 wrote: »

So become, in essence, the Irish catholic-but-really-protestant church?

The I Can't Believe I'm Not Catholic Church?

jank

fitz0 wrote: »

So become, in essence, the Irish catholic-but-really-protestant church?

I don't care what they call themselves. There is more to Catholism than being a slave of Rome.

Sarky

Being a slave to Rome is one of the more important parts, if the actions of the church of late are any indication. Right up there with transubstantiation and the silliness with condoms.

mikhail

jank wrote: »

I don't care what they call themselves. There is more to Catholism than being a slave of Rome.

Irish Catholics make me think of this scene from Scott Pilgrim:

the_syco

Going by the amount of wackos in America who feel the need to execute those the voices in their heads say should die, it's a wonder that none of the peado priests have gotten shot by a serial killer yet!

fitz0

jank wrote: »

I don't care what they call themselves. There is more to Catholism than being a slave of Rome.

But acceptance of the pope as their god's representative on earth is one of their traditions right down from the first pope, St Peter. If they're going to break from tradition in that way then, according to their beliefs and the rules laid down by their god's representative on earth, they're all going to the big oven.

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Best way to change an organisation is from within, not the outside.
Personally I think the Irish Catholic church should abdicate from Rome. Clear out at the top and then bring in changes with the help of lay people, women priests etc..

The current pope is living in the middle ages with his policies.

Hmmm, what name could we give it? Catholic church might cause confusion. The Irish church of breakaway Catholics? Too long. Oh. Now about church of Ireland?

MrP

Nodin

'catholicism-lite - now with 100% less Pope'.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

Best way to change an organisation is from within, not the outside.
Personally I think the Irish Catholic church should abdicate from Rome. Clear out at the top and then bring in changes with the help of lay people, women priests etc..

The current pope is living in the middle ages with his policies.

I agree - but the problem is that obedience to the Pope in Rome is an inherent part of being a Roman Catholic. Most Irish Catholics aren't really Catholic at all, but they either don't know it, or they know it but won't admit it.

After all they're damned if they're going to accept that they might be protestants, what with Cromwell, 800 years of oppression and all that.

jank

fitz0 wrote: »

But acceptance of the pope as their god's representative on earth is one of their traditions right down from the first pope, St Peter. If they're going to break from tradition in that way then, according to their beliefs and the rules laid down by their god's representative on earth, they're all going to the big oven.

You do realise that is a very black and white view of the Irish Catholics?
You also realise that there was a Christian/catholic church in Ireland long before rome asserted control?

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, what name could we give it? Catholic church might cause confusion. The Irish church of breakaway Catholics? Too long. Oh. Now about church of Ireland?

MrP

Catholic church of Ireland? As I said a name is just a name, I wonder would this then stop alot of the ridiciule found here, probably not.

jank

swampgas wrote: »

I agree - but the problem is that obedience to the Pope in Rome is an inherent part of being a Roman Catholic. Most Irish Catholics aren't really Catholic at all, but they either don't know it, or they know it but won't admit it.

After all they're damned if they're going to accept that they might be protestants, what with Cromwell, 800 years of oppression and all that.

I think the whole colonial past has a part to play in it but is short sighted view of history. Most Irish people may not be "true" catholics in the eyes of Rome, then again who is?

Most of them however ascribe themselves to that cultural identity or have Christian values.

fitz0

jank wrote: »

You do realise that is a very black and white view of the Irish Catholics?
You also realise that there was a Christian/catholic church in Ireland long before rome asserted control?

Yes, it's also true. Irish Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church. They wouldn't be Catholics if they weren't. If they truly adhere to Catholic principles, then by seceding from the RCC they are damning themselves to hell as heretics.

I really don't care either way whether there was Christianity, an Elder Gods cult or a cow worshipping religion in Ireland before Roman Catholicism became dominant. Whatever they believed, Irish Catholics are Catholics now. So the point is irrelevant.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I think the whole colonial past has a part to play in it but is short sighted view of history. Most Irish people may not be "true" catholics in the eyes of Rome, then again who is?

Most of them however ascribe themselves to that cultural identity or have Christian values.

Are you suggesting that Irish Catholics for the most part only call themselves Catholic because they were brought up that way? Why I never! By the way, they're not really Christian either when you examine it. What they are are people afraid of death clinging to the only version of an afterlife that allows them to see all their dead friends and relatives who happen to believe in the same afterlife. Which is why they probably remain Catholic in the face of such atrocious acts because otherwise they have to think about death and the ifs and buts of an afterlife that allows multiple sects or even different religions in etc. and that's way too uncomfortable because it's only a step away from thinking about the whole likelihood of an afterlife in the first place. It's also why they call us militant for simply voicing our beliefs because it suggests that an afterlife is actually not a given.

jank

fitz0 wrote: »

Yes, it's also true. Irish Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church. They wouldn't be Catholics if they weren't. If they truly adhere to Catholic principles, then by seceding from the RCC they are damning themselves to hell as heretics.
.

Afaik the RCC does not ascribe to this notion anymore, you are more then welcome to prove me wrong.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Irish Catholics for the most part only call themselves Catholic because they were brought up that way? Why I never! By the way, they're not really Christian either when you examine it. What they are are people afraid of death clinging to the only version of an afterlife that allows them to see all their dead friends and relatives who happen to believe in the same afterlife. Which is why they probably remain Catholic in the face of such atrocious acts because otherwise they have to think about death and the ifs and buts of an afterlife that allows multiple sects or even different religions in etc. and that's way too uncomfortable because it's only a step away from thinking about the whole likelihood of an afterlife in the first place. It's also why they call us militant for simply voicing our beliefs because it suggests that an afterlife is actually not a given.

I actually ROFL'd at that post. I think you have a very misguided outlook on religion in Ireland if you actually believe the above.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I actually ROFL'd at that post. I think you have a very misguided outlook on religion in Ireland if you actually believe the above.

Care to help me out then?

fitz0

jank wrote: »

Afaik the RCC does not ascribe to this notion anymore, you are more then welcome to prove me wrong.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]"

So they are heretics for believing in non-church doctrine, those women priests you mentioned. They are also schismatic if they break away from the church and Rome's authority.

"Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic... As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics."

So they are schismatic for breaking away but the next generation of adherents to their new church will not be. They're still damned and automatically excommunicated under canon law.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

recedite

Many of the protestant churches also refer to themselves as catholic with a small "c", and the dictionary definition of the word is "universal". Pretty much everyone likes to think their religion is a universal one, except maybe the jews, who like to be a little bit exclusive.
The early Irish church is probably best referred to as "Early Christian" up to the period that they subjugated to the overriding authority of the bishop of Rome.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

Catholic church of Ireland? As I said a name is just a name, [...]

jank wrote: »

I think the whole colonial past has a part to play in it but is short sighted view of history. Most Irish people may not be "true" catholics in the eyes of Rome, then again who is?

Most of them however ascribe themselves to that cultural identity or have Christian values.

You do realise that is a very black and white view of the Irish Catholics?
You also realise that there was a Christian/catholic church in Ireland long before rome asserted control?

I think I see the point you are trying to make here.

You seem to be suggesting that Irish Catholics, en mass, could break away from Rome and re-define themselves as (say) "Irish Catholics" and reject the authority of the pope - perhaps returning to an early (pre-Roman) Christian model instead. And that they can still call themselves Catholics if they so wish.

I agree that they could, and that maybe they should.

However the question UDP asked was how could a priest, in good conscience, remain part of the RCC given it's recent record of abuse etc. You seem to be saying that a priest should remain in the RCC and try to change it from within - however you also seem to be saying that that change could involve breaking away from Rome.

Why couldn't that priest simply leave the RCC and join (say) the CofI instead? Would it not be a quicker way to achieve pretty much the same thing?

Hotblack Desiato

fitz0 wrote: »

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

*raises hand*

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]"

Getting confused now, I thought I was an apostate but it turns out I'm a heretic and I might be a schismatic as well, or does schismaticism take precedence over heresy? Is it even a word? It's a long roast in hell according to the odd men in dresses anyway so hey ho.

So they are schismatic for breaking away but the next generation of adherents to their new church will not be. They're still damned and automatically excommunicated under canon law.

Kind of a handy get out clause. If your group is small and new and weak enough we can victimise you, if you get big and powerful enough like the Protestants did, then we'll just choose to ignore you.

Schismatic is a great word btw, it should've been a spoof product in a 70's Dan Akroyd SNL sketch.

fitz0

Yeah, Canon Law is srz bsns. It's also a serious exercise in doublethink. According to it, we're all kinds of everything and every one of them damned.

Also, schismatic is a fantastic word. Even saying it is great. Shizz-matic or Skizz-o-matic depending on the pronunciation. Satisfying.

Hotblack Desiato

Edit: Sorry about the ad for shîte beer at the end, but couldn't find an unpolluted version. Their brand is muck forever here anyway thanks to a certain ex-Taoiseach...

fitz0

ninja900 wrote: »

You get a thumb because that's the only conceivable recipe for that muck they call ale.

Hotblack Desiato

A Bishop's Finger inside you can be quite enjoyable though.

robindch

ninja900 wrote: »

A Bishop's Finger inside you can be quite enjoyable though.

First-hand (cough) experience?

Hotblack Desiato

It's in a can, yeuch (don't mind kissin', but I hate that!)



I'm sure fitz0 will explain to me later via pm what the 'thumb' I'm going to get is
:pac:

:eek: