Vatican to excommunicate women priests

[pgwenthold]

Did you miss this bit from post #32? IN any case, I like the way you said that.

While the sentiment is the same as your one post, your other posts belie that. Your continued defense of the church as "the rules are the rules" ignores the fact these bishops (or maybe it is only one) also believe that these rules are not immutable. Resorts to church canon are not helpful, they only beg the question. The condemnation of the church in this thread could equally be viewed as support for those progressive voices among the church authorities who are trying to make the changes that we (if I count myself among them) want to happen.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Wow, excommunicating them?! Excommunicating them?! Throwing them out of the church for ever and ever? Condemning their souls to hell? Really?

Now, having been raised a Catholic, I'd certainly expect serious penalties for female priests and those who ordained them. Like confession and penance. Some serious confession and penance. Maybe forbidding them from entering that particular parish again. Maybe forbidding them from taking communion until they fully repent.

Excommunication, though? Really?

And, of course, the immense irony here is that men who molest deaf children on multiple occasions are allowed to stay with no problem...

 

[roger]

This reminds me of those uppity ****** with the termerity to try to sit in the front of the bus. They knew the rules - they could have used other transport if they disagreed with the rules. I hear walking still works.

Rules is rules, after all.

 

[KingMerv00]

Where is your emotional investment in this, if you are outraged?

Human empathy.

To criticize the church for having inane, silly, or unfair practices does not require outrage, nor do I think it called for, particularly in this case. The people involved embarked on these tests of the rules with their eyes fully open. They knew they were testing and breaking the rules

You are usually born into religion. Sometimes you are emotionally blackmailed into keeping the failth. Most of the time, being Catholic is not a matter of volition, it is a matter of indoctrination. This is doubly true with the most devoted.

Happily, there are many Christian sects who have female clergy. I have found in my limited experience with such things that Protestants warmly welcome ex Catholics, but that may be an American thing.

DR

That would be great except some people think they will go to hell for changing religions.

Changing religions is not like flipping a light switch for some people. It is an agonizing, difficult choice that results in the loss of friends and family.

Is the RCC encouraging them to change religions? No. It is telling them to stay Catholic and ignore their dream solely because they are women.

 

[RockNroll]

Curious: are most Québécois Catholic?

Yes, of the "well, I don't often go to church but I'm very spiritual and self-identify as a catholic" variety.

Up until a few decades ago, the catholic church wielded a HUGE amount of power in Québec society. Thankfully, this changed rather quickly after the "quiet revolution" in the 60s. However, whenever catholicism is brought up by public figures (and most citizen voicing their opinions), it is usually made out to be a sooper-important part of our culture and identity. And I feel I must point out that québécois tend to be very insecure and protective about their oh-so-precious-and-special culture and group identity

 

[Darth Rotor]

While the sentiment is the same as your one post, your other posts belie that. Your continued defense of the church as "the rules are the rules" ignores the fact these bishops (or maybe it is only one) also believe that these rules are not immutable. Resorts to church canon are not helpful, they only beg the question.

My continued defense of the church. Interesting choice of words, pg.

If your criticism is that the RCC ought to have female priests, fine. A valid criticism. The thread's subject is the punishment, and the punishment is for fraudulent ordination. See my point to Merv about being a member of a club.

If the condemnation is in fact support for progressive bishops, which I don't think it has been, absent yourself, then so much the better. Change from within is how change happens in that organization, and typically has been.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wow, excommunicating them?! Excommunicating them?! Throwing them out of the church for ever and ever? Condemning their souls to hell? Really?

Educate yourself, and click on the links I provided on that topic in this thread, would you? What you described isn't what you think it describes.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Human empathy.

OK. Maybe I am old and jaded, and burned out on anger and outrage. I pick my fights more these days. This one ain't worth the energy.

You are usually born into religion. Sometimes you are emotionally blackmailed into keeping the failth. Most of the time, being Catholic is not a matter of volition, it is a matter of indoctrination. This is doubly true with the most devoted.

keeping the failth. <== If that was intentional, or not, it's kinda funny.

That would be great except some people think they will go to hell for changing religions.

My view on this tends to be Amero-Centric. I find what you just said ridiculous. However, there may be places where this is considered true.

Changing religions is not like flipping a light switch for some people. It is an agonizing, difficult choice that results in the loss of friends and family.

It can be, yes.

Is the RCC encouraging them to change religions? No. It is telling them to stay Catholic and ignore their dream solely because they are women.

Correct. In some cases, a dispute arises that leads to irreconcilable differences. See Martin Luther, among others. See Roger Williams. Ya know, Merv, it's sorta funny to see your entitlement argument, you being American.

Our country was founded by people who followed their dream here, since they left somewhere else where they could not. My grandmother among others. Maybe, in this case, that's the better way to follow a particular dream. The options are there.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

OK. Maybe I am old and jaded, and burned out on anger and outrage. I pick my fights more these days. This one ain't worth the energy.

I don't usually feel "outrage" either. Sexism and racism get to me though.

keeping the failth. <== If that was intentional, or not, it's kinda funny.

It was intentional but I thought it was a really lame joke.

My view on this tends to be Amero-Centric. I find what you just said ridiculous. However, there may be places where this is considered true.

The RCC spans the globe so I'm more inclined to consider global issues.

Correct. In some cases, a dispute arises that leads to irreconcilable differences. See Martin Luther, among others.

This should not be irreconcilable; it is a simple matter of changing the rule. Women should not be forced to leave a community just because they want to teach as men teach. Why should they have to do all the giving? Maybe the church should bend too?

Ya know, Merv, it's sorta funny to see your entitlement argument, you being American.

I don't see gender equality as "entitlement". I see it as justice.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't see gender equality as "entitlement". I see it as justice.

That isn't what I was referring to as entitlement. Your position is that they are entitled to violate the rules of their private club, based on some special victim status.

No, they are not. This is why I pointed out the irreconsilable differences problem, which is NOT new for the RCC. Again, why I pointed to Martin Luther, and for that matter, we can point to the Great Schism with the Greeks.

Each of these weakened the RCC.

People voted with their feet, and non tithes, for the past sixty years by leaving the RCC in droves. (At least they have in America). I watched people walk out of the church in CT about a decade ago, over the clergy-child abuse scandal in the US.

People like my friend Larry, a husband of a nice lady and the father of one child. He was raised in the RCC, in the Seventies. He left. He ain't ever going back. Why? Priests fiddling with kids. He's passionate in his disgust for the Vatican, and the church in general.

The core reason the RCC has grown in the US in my lifetime is immigration, not effective evangelization.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

That isn't what I was referring to as entitlement. Your position is that they are entitled to violate the rules of their private club, based on some special victim status.

I don't think I said they were entitled to break the rules. I encourage them to use their priesthood and excommunication as a form of protest and I encourage the RCC to change their backward ways. I DON'T encourage the women to leave their faith over this easily changed rule that has no bearing on the core of Catholicism because that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(As an atheist, I see it as ALL bathwater but you know what I'm saying.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think I said they were entitled to break the rules. I encourage them to use their priesthood and excommunication as a form of protest and I encourage the RCC to change their backward ways.

If their ordination were licit, I'd completely agree with you. It was never licit. There are other illicit ordinations that would also be punished by excommunication. Please, please, see the links I provided. A bishop involved in an illicit ordination gets hammered. That's the rules, as do whoever else is involved in that what is case of simple fraud.

From the link:

Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330[6] are verified, the following persons incur excommunication latæ sententiæ:

-- an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
-- a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose; (Wafer abuse!)
-- a person who uses physical force against the Pope; (Even though he now and again could use a slap upside the head ... )
-- a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery;
-- a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
-- a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
a person who procures a completed abortion;and
accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed

The bolded item shows a bit of even handedness here, as a fraudulent ordination gets hammered, be the one receiving the ordination male or female. The language I posted earlier about simulated ordination means that the act of ordination is false.

It's fraud. That is why I linked to the Celis case.

As an atheist, I see it as ALL bathwater but you know what I'm saying.

I appreciate that. A great reason for you not to join the Bathwater Club.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

The bolded item shows a bit of even handedness here, as a fraudulent ordination gets hammered, be the one receiving the ordination male or female. The language I posted earlier about simulated ordination means that the act of ordination is false.

The ordination was "simulated" because that is the only option they had.

 

[KingMerv00]

If their ordination were licit, I'd completely agree with you. It was never licit.

There would be no need to protest if women in the priesthood was licit.

What links?

The bolded item shows a bit of even handedness here, as a fraudulent ordination gets hammered, be the one receiving the ordination male or female. The language I posted earlier about simulated ordination means that the act of ordination is false.

It's fraud. That is why I linked to the Celis case.

I appreciate that. A great reason for you not to join the Bathwater Club.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

There would be no need to protest if women in the priesthood was licit.

If speeding weren't illicit, I'd not get speeding tickets. This isn't going anywhere. Fraud is fraud.

What links?

The first post I made in the thread had a link to the auto excommunication rules. POsts 3 & 32, where I repeated it.

See also post 42 and how to recover from excommunication, if you wish to. Which I repeat here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

That doesn't change what you see as an unfair rule, but it shows that the core problem of fraudulent ordination isn't just about women. It also shows that you can overcome excommunication if you wish to remain in the RCC, and agree to follow its rules.

DR

 

[Aoidoi]

A random thought after reading the thread:

Isn't the OP situation like firing a Boy Scout Leader for letting girls in?

 

[Darth Rotor]

A random thought after reading the thread:

Isn't the OP situation like firing a Boy Scout Leader for letting girls in?

It seems to be, if you include firing the girls for trying to be boys. (???)

Maybe not.

DR

 

[Arisia]

Sorry, let me first apologise for taking the bait on the derail.

Now back to the original point. I have no issue with the Bishop involved being excommunicated. All organisations have rules. With RCC you are told the rules up front, and what happens if you choose not to follow them.

There are many rewarding roles women can plan in the church if they have the calling. If they dont feel those satisfy them, there are other Christian faiths that allow them greater scopes in their spiritual roles

Personally I have never met a woman who professed frustration at being unable to become a priest in the Church so I cant really say how I feel on the subject

So the RCC thinks God couldn't possibly put the call to be a Catholic priest in the heart of a woman? I was under the impression that Catholics think He is omnipotent? In addition, women were the only ones to stand by Christ as he was crucified and women were the first to proclaim the gospel, the good news of Christ's resurrection. And somehow God wouldn't ever call a woman to be a Catholic priest?!?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So the RCC thinks God couldn't possibly put the call to be a Catholic priest in the heart of a woman?

Have you asked them? That's a good question, but the way you phrased that is a strawman construction. "So and so thinks that" ... you phrased an assertion as a question.

What you might want to do is look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Code of Canon Law, and find out what the RCC policy is. They may even provide some comments on why the clergy isn't open to women.

You don't have to guess.

But you raise an excellent point.

Why does the RCC policy restrict the priesthood to men? If the call to serve is put in women's hearts, and it appears that this often happens, these ladies being fine examples, why does the RCC policy not accomodate that?

A month ago Lisa Miller wrote a neat article in Newsweek, in which she pointed out that about 60% of Catholics are women. Her general point was that the RCC needs to do a better job of taking advantage of the talent of such a significant portion of the faithful. She recommended the clergy be opened to women, thought the thrust of the article was the child abuse scandal's latest skullduggery, and the "Shields up, Benedict" approach the Vatican took.

DR

 

[Dorian Gray]

Are any of the women priests also pedophiles?

My right hand wants to know.

Is it cheating if you use your left hand?

This is a good way to clear the church of a large group of modern people, who might as well become their own church. They're never going to have an American pope. Never. I'm not sure they have any high ranking Deputy Popes.