Vatican to excommunicate women priests

[Yashichi]

Premise (DR): One cannot criticize a group that one is not a member of.
Premise (Implicit): DR is not a member of the group of those who criticize groups they are not members of.
Conclusion: DR cannot criticize those who criticize groups they are not members of.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Premise (DR): One cannot criticize a group that one is not a member of.
Premise (Implicit): DR is not a member of the group of those who criticize groups they are not members of.
Conclusion: DR cannot criticize those who criticize groups they are not members of.

If your opening premise is false, which it is, your whole line is false.

Fail.

I did not say anyone could not criticize the RCC. Why don't you learn how to read English, before you open your pie hole?

In short, and in case you wish to understand your failure, "outrage" != "criticism" in English.

DR

 

[Aepervius]

I actually loudly applaud the catholic church and the Vatican handling of the pedophilia affair. I bow to their handling on the catholic priest rule. I invite them to continue on this road, and to do even more !

*clap clap clap*.

As an atheist I can only encourage them on this way. I think rationality will only convince a minority of people, but the church being stuck in the past with a retro-cranial-anal inversion will probably make more people turn away from them than a good dawkin's or Sagan's discourse will....

 

[KingMerv00]

What an innovative position to take.

I never said it is innovative and I don't know why it should evoke sarcasm from you. Why is it wrong to criticize groups to which you don't belong? Please explain.

There are clearly codified rules for how to receive ordination in the RCC. Having the XY chromosome (and much else) is among them. Otherwise, you can't be ordained. If that bothers you as much as you say, you have made a good choice NOT to be a member in the RCC. So, change the rule, make ladies priests, and the ordination is all good and above board. Not easy, no.

Never said it would be easy to change the rules. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Let me put this another way: if the American Bar association requires that you pass the bar exam in order to practice law, or represent yourself as a lawyer in State X, you get penalized if you try to practice law there, representing yourself as a lawyer, for not following the rules of That Profession in that state.

There is a logical reason to require the bar exam. It demonstrates a minimum level of competency so that clients are protected from idiots and fraudsters. If admittance to the bar required the XY chromosome, I would have no problem with women representing themselves as lawyers as long as they met all other logical requirements. If they were penalized, I'd be outraged and work towards changing the rules. I certainly wouldn't look down on laypeople who criticized such rules either.

As before, the RCC loses parishoners right, left, and center for a variety of reasons, policies like this among them. When they lose them, it hits them in the wallet. They will probably lose a few more over this, though I expect a lot of people in the RCC would be wondering why they got involved in fraud in the first place.

DR

How being female interfere with their priestly duties?

 

[Darth Rotor]

do you?

Yes, I do.

In fact, my expression of that outrage in the late 90's, early 2000's, did damage to my marriage, thanks to being married to a Catholic. This problem in the RCC led me to forbid my son being involved in any and all Church activities such as altar server, etc. I was OK with him going to CCD, which was taught by lay people, not clergy.

Yes, I've paid a price for my outrage, unlike some people I might name.

DR

 

[Yashichi]

Perhaps I should have added the smiley to that post after all

(It's not necessarily false, just not logically valid.)

Your statement:

"I don't get the outrage over this. You don't like that rule? Don't be part of that church."

I would be interested in knowing what you meant by this, if it was not intended to exclude non-members from criticizing the church.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I never said it is innovative and I don't know why it should evoke sarcasm from you. Why is it wrong to criticize groups to which you don't belong?

It isn't wrong to criticize. I never said it was. Hell, Merv, I criticize the RCC frequently.

Never said it would be easy to change the rules. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I can agree with you there.

How being female interfere with their priestly duties?

I have no idea. Apparently, the Methodist and Episopalean churches don't see any problem, and it seems to work.

DR

 

[Ladewig]

That isn't specified in the Code of Canon Law. Priests being male is. These penalties are being levied under the rubric of Canon Law, FWIW.

I was trying to point out the arbitrariness of Canon Law. I consider it somewhat absurd to have so many other Christian denominations move past this issue while the RCC is so hung up on it. Allowing women to be priests will not cause harm to anyone, in fact, it might even work toward promoting the equality of the sexes in many third world countries. To paraphrase Mr. Dickens, "(Canon) Law is an ass."

 

[KingMerv00]

It isn't wrong to criticize. I never said it was. Hell, Merv, I criticize the RCC frequently.

Then explain this quote to me:

I note a change of subject. You also are not part of that social group. Neither is Pardalis. So again, why the outrage?

What don't you understand?

People are being punished based on sexist rules. Doesn't that bother you? Why SHOULDN'T we be outraged?

 

[Pardalis]

Because I am outraged by sexism whether it is part of my social group or not.

What an innovative position to take.

Nevertheless, it's the right one.

No. While change is difficult in the RCC, and slow, it can happen.

No, it's not just slow, it's impotent. Day after day they show no willingness to change.

The 21st century is not going to wait for them any longer. Follow with the times or die (the Church I mean).

We've had it with inane backward rules from the iron age.

 

[Toke]

Yes, I do.

In fact, my expression of that outrage in the late 90's, early 2000's, did damage to my marriage, thanks to being married to a Catholic. This problem in the RCC led me to forbid my son being involved in any and all Church activities such as altar server, etc. I was OK with him going to CCD, which was taught by lay people, not clergy.

Yes, I've paid a price for my outrage, unlike some people I might name.

DR

That sounds very sensible to me, not letting your son anywhere near a catholic priest.

As for the lady priests, my (Lutheran) state church have them and I see that others religions/branches have them too.
The RCC just happen to be more backwards that others with regards to current society. Lets hope it helps reduce it's following.

 

[Darth Rotor]

People are being punished based on sexist rules.

Go back a second. To my first post in this thread. This punishment isn't particularly onerous. These rules are elective. It's not like you or I being discriminated against the laws in PA, were I a resident there, and we don't have the choice of simply walking next door to the next church.

The bishops, as I understand the rules, stand to fare worse than the lady priests. They were the senior official who aided and abetted the breaking of the rules. They deliberately perpetrated a fraudulent ordination, a process bound by formal rules. (Interesting, how these bishops in the RCC come up on that charge again, with the fraudulent handling of the child abuse thing, so maybe the two are tangentially related ... )

Read. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

They are members of a club. There are rules in that club. They willingly chose to break the rules of the club. The club has applied a sanction. That sanction can be lifted. They are willing members of the club, and willingly broke the club's rules. Why are you outraged?

You think the club's rules are unfair, or discriminatory. That is a fair criticism of the rule set. But they willingly remained members of that club, knowing those rules fully.

There are a couple of ways to see this, rather than with outrage that leads nowhere.

FWIW, I personally don't know why anyone would want to be a priest, I don't understand how that calling comes about, but I guess some people are so moved.

Try this on for size. Take solace in the fact that there were bishops who risked sanction, and broke the rules anyway, knowing they'd catch crap for it sooner or later. That is evidence of dissent in the RCC, dissent that may in time lead to reform.

Or not.

Another is to admire these women who felt the call to be priests, and who risked sanction, knowing what the rules were and did it anyway to serve their parish. They took their risks willingly. They will take their lumps with good grace, if my guess is worth anything. Pretty impressive people, risking their own like that.

If your response is outrage, then what?
Point to the RCC and say "Unfair."
OK, then what?
Don't join.
OK, then what?
Criticize the Vatican.
OK, then what?

This is hardly the worst problem they have. Please note, I can't be a nun (wrong genitals), nor could I be a priest. I could become the best ever RCC dude on the planet earth, and as I understand the rules, having been married and raised kids, etc, I would not be eligible.

Oh, pshaw, it's discriminatory! UNFAIR! I am a guy who could not be an RCC priest.

Funny, I lose no sleep over that.

DR

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Look on the flip side, by excommunicating them, the Vatican has also reduced it's power over them..

 

[Thunder]

i would never try to convince someone to leave the RCC.

but now....maybe I should reconsider that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nevertheless, it's the right one.

And?

No, it's not just slow, it's impotent. Day after day they show no willingness to change. The 21st century is not going to wait for them any longer. Follow with the times or die (the Church I mean).

They change slowly, glacially, and rarely. However, if you look at the history of the RCC, it does change, sometimes. Not fast enough for you, not fast enough for me, and not fast enough for a whole lot of folks who have left it.

We've had it with inane backward rules from the iron age.

OK, you've had it.

A billion Catholics haven't.

Now what?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Look on the flip side, by excommunicating them, the Vatican has also reduced it's power over them..

Only if they leave the church. They may, and if so, you are exactly correct. That day, the Church has lost its power over them. I don't think the Pope gets that, to be frank with you.

As noted in the link I provided earlier on, excommunication can be overcome by the rite of reconciliation. (Confession, contrition, absolution, penance, all that stuff).

I am not sure people understand what excommunication means well enough.

 

[Alt+F4]

The Church says it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles.

It was women that first announced the resurrection of Christ. Is this not the true definition of an apostle? And where were the men? Oh yeah, they ran away.

 

[Bill Thompson]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2986418520080529

You got to give it to them, when women are concerned the clergy is really quick to act.

I guess women are considered a bigger threat to the Church than child molesters.

We are forgetting that women have no souls. This has been proven in a lab at Los Alamos as well as a research facility in Moscow. During the cold war funds were set aside on both sides to see if the reaction times to various conditions showed if the responses were triggered by an actual consciousness or simple chemical reactions. Yuri Fletamoff in the Soviet Union published several conclusive papers on the subject as well ad Enrico Fermi (the nuclear scientist and nobel prize winner). Now, all I have to do is write a few sentences to pad this text to allow people to respond in outrage. You see, noone reads whole posts anymore because it seems modern humans have short attention spans they respond too soon before they read the fact that I am just joking. Let's see how many people respond...

 

[Darth Rotor]

It was women that first announced the resurrection of Christ. Is this not the true definition of an apostle?

No, it is not the true definition of an apostle, but it is a fact (or a part of the biblical narrative, if you prefer) far too frequently overlooked. As the narrative goes, she ran to the men to tell them, who didn't believe them, and had to go and see for themselves.

And where were the men? Oh yeah, they ran away.

IIRC, yes they did, until Jesus had to come and find them, after death, and remind them of what he charged them to do. Go be fishers of men, and all that.

FWIW Apostles:

Apostle (Ancient Greek: ἀπόστολος apostolos, one sent forth as a messenger)

"were missionaries among the leaders in the Early Church and, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,Jesus Christ himself. The term was also used, especially by the Gospel of Luke, for "the Twelve," Jesus' inner circle of disciples (students). They were, according to the Acts of the Apostles and Christian tradition, disciples whom Jesus of Nazareth had chosen, named, and trained in order to send them on a specific mission: the establishment of the Christian Church by evangelism and the spreading of the "good news", after being sent the Holy Spirit as "helper" (Paraclete) in this task at Pentecost.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

We are forgetting that women have no souls. This has been proven in a lab at Los Alamos as well as a research facility in Moscow. During the cold war funds were set aside on both sides to see if the reaction times to various conditions showed if the responses were triggered by an actual consciousness or simple chemical reactions. Yuri Fletamoff in the Soviet Union published several conclusive papers on the subject as well ad Enrico Fermi (the nuclear scientist and nobel prize winner). Now, all I have to do is write a few sentences to pad this text to allow people to respond in outrage. You see, noone reads whole posts anymore because it seems modern humans have short attention spans they respond too soon before they read the fact that I am just joking. Let's see how many people respond...

Do high heeled shoes actually have soles?
Also:

Read the Original Article, people!

Attempts to ordain women priests are highly unusual. But the archbishop of St. Louis earlier this year declared three women excommunicated after an ordination ceremony in his diocese.

Excommunication is usually "ferendae sententiae", imposed as punishment.

But some offences, including heresy, schism, and laying violent hands on the Pope, are considered so disruptive of ecclesiastical life that they trigger automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae".

The decree says that women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated "latae sententiae".

It is recoverable.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Go to item VI, Absolution from excommunication. Yes, the prose is overly verbose, but that's the RCC for ya.