"Liberal" Priest under investigation by Vatican

Run_to_da_hills

More here.

Pope rebukes rebel priests over calls for celibacy reform

Freddie59

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What's a lay minister???

Minster Of The Eucharist.

Freddie59

marty1985 wrote: »

Although, Freddie, a lot of Catholics would disagree. I want to play devil's advocate here. (My own opinion would be that I think married clergy could be a good thing, but I actually respect the Church for sticking to its principles at times.) Priests, having been trained and educated within the church, know they are sent out to propagate approved interpretations of the faith and not to select their own. It shouldn't be speaking with more than one voice. This is at variance with modern practice in the Church of England, where we can see clearly the results of 'liberal' reforms.



I know, I've followed some good discussions you participated in.



An alternative view would be that authority is important as there needs to be a coherent ecclesiology. They need to be able to identify error if they are to be able to identify truth. I sympathise because we live in a society now that rejects all authority, and authority in ideas in particular. Whatever people think of the Roman Catholic Church (which is to a high degree shaped by our media), the melt-down actually seems to be occuring in the Protestant church in England precisely because there is no external authority, so they are open to all sorts of erroneous ideas. The church, for the sake of its members, should always be suspicious of ideas and demands being spouted by self-described liberals, and I think Pope Benedict XVI has said publicly he is suspicious of Boardsies, who deride all religion but retain a particular venom for Catholics, and therefore demand to change the church, not from a position of struggling with the faith, but because they want to destroy it.

By the way, when the church "silence" someone, as sinister as it sounds, it usually means removing their license to teach Catholic theology. How could that not make sense? To use an example of one case, why should a Catholic theologian in a Catholic university be allowed to teach that Christ was not really divine?

Fair points, all of them. But has not the man-made rules of the Catholic church brought it to where it is now Marty? Had they been allowed marry, would we have seen the level of abuse that was perpetrated by what were clearly organised Paedophiles? The most sickening thing for me, personally, is the attempt to cover it up. Which is still ongoing.

I Heart Internet

Freddie59 wrote: »

Minster Of The Eucharist.

Yeah, they were permitted as an exception in the 70s and 80s because of just such dissent.

They are not officially permitted - more tolerated. And I'm talking here of all Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist (to give them their proper title). As the name suggests, if used at all, they should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Of course, convenience has seen this extraordinary element ditched in most parishes.

marty1985

Freddie59 wrote: »

Fair points, all of them. But has not the man-made rules of the Catholic church brought it to where it is now Marty? Had they been allowed marry, would we have seen the level of abuse that was perpetrated by what were clearly organised Paedophiles? The most sickening thing for me, personally, is the attempt to cover it up. Which is still ongoing.

If priests were allowed to marry, would they have abused children? I'm not sure about this one. There could be numerous causes for child sex abuse. It should be noted that incidents of sexual abuse are a breach of the Church's discipline, not a result of it. If someone breaks rules, is it fair to say the rules should be abolished, or even that the rule caused it? Contrary to conventional wisdom there is no data supporting a higher rate of child-oriented sexual activity among the unmarried Catholic clergy than that of the married clergy of other denominations or of schoolteachers. My own feeling is that abuse often occurs in positions of access to children with trust already in place. The majority of child sex abuse occurs within families. The idea that the church was a haven for pedophiles because That's Where Perverts Went To Hide From Society is baseless and grounded less in any empirical data than it is in anti-clerical stereotypes of Catholic perversion that have existed for centuries.

RichieC

marty1985 wrote: »

(My own opinion would be that I think married clergy could be a good thing, but I actually respect the Church for sticking to its principles at times.)

Nothing Principled about it. They are protecting their assets. As with anything to do with Religion, it's about MONEY!

Min

Most sexual abuse happens within families.

Sexual abuse in the Catholic church only makes up a small percentage of all known abuse but it is by far the most high profile.

Being celibate or unmarried doesn't turn one into a sexual abuser.

Seachmall

marty1985 wrote: »

And also, using the terms liberal and conservative in relation to the Church is just borrowed from the popular interest in politics. Nobody asks if the Dalai Lama is a liberal Buddhist, or a conservative Buddhist.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are terms independent of politics, they're social terms that often have cross over in politics and, in this case, religion. Granted they are most associated with politics but they're just as suited for use with religion, or anything else for that matter.

Toby Take a Bow

marty1985 wrote: »

Nobody asks if the Dalai Lama is a liberal Buddhist, or a conservative Buddhist.

Regardless of applying 'liberal' or 'conservative' tags to the debate, the Dalai Lama did get some sticky questions a while back over some footballer who suggested that people born disabled were paying for things in previous lives. The Dalai Lama suggested that Buddhists shouldn't mention such things in cultures that would find them repulsive (or: keep it down regarding our true beliefs, it might hurt our conversion rate).

Nodin

Freddie59 wrote: »

As a Catholic I find the Church's behaviour increasingly more erratic and ridiculous. They now want to silence any voices of dissent. An arrogant attitude which needs to be removed. And now.

...........

"now"? You seem to forget the clear out JP had, with the current pope being his point man.

Freddie59

marty1985 wrote: »

If priests were allowed to marry, would they have abused children? I'm not sure about this one. There could be numerous causes for child sex abuse. It should be noted that incidents of sexual abuse are a breach of the Church's discipline, not a result of it. If someone breaks rules, is it fair to say the rules should be abolished, or even that the rule caused it? Contrary to conventional wisdom there is no data supporting a higher rate of child-oriented sexual activity among the unmarried Catholic clergy than that of the married clergy of other denominations or of schoolteachers. My own feeling is that abuse often occurs in positions of access to children with trust already in place. The majority of child sex abuse occurs within families. The idea that the church was a haven for pedophiles because That's Where Perverts Went To Hide From Society is baseless and grounded less in any empirical data than it is in anti-clerical stereotypes of Catholic perversion that have existed for centuries.

True. No more than all parents are paedophiles. But it is food for thought.

Freddie59

Nodin wrote: »

"now"? You seem to forget the clear out JP had, with the current pope being his point man.

I wouldn't disagree with that essentially. And you are correct about the point man. But action has to be taken. And soon.

Freddie59

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The way forward is Christ and his Church.

Somehow I don't think Christ had this type of Church in mind when He founded it.

marty1985

Seachmall wrote: »

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are terms independent of politics, they're social terms that often have cross over in politics and, in this case, religion. Granted they are most associated with politics but they're just as suited for use with religion, or anything else for that matter.

To clarify my position on that: the liberal/conservative (political) grid is moderately useful for sorting out some issues and players within the church post Vatican II, but the use of this as a one-size-fits-all template in relation to ancient and complex religious institutions is implausible and distorting. I don't say the Dalai Lama is a liberal or conservative Buddhist, and I have studied up on Buddhism a lot, because I understand these are the wrong categories through which to grasp the nature of a venerable, subtle and richly textured religious tradition. Putting everything in a liberal/conservative (for Boardsies, this reads good/bad) framework only creates misunderstanding.

F12

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So what do you do when they initiate Vatican III? The Church can change, and has done in the past. It's just been quite resistant to change of late, despite plummeting numbers attending mass (in the west) and all the scandals.

Life is simple: change or die. If death is more important to them than reality, then let reality take its course, which it will anyway. There's more and worse to come, including stuff about the bones of hundreds if not thousands of infants, apparently nuns' children, turning up in the grounds of convents around the country, especially where they used to have lime kilns nearby.