FREE TAPATALK APP

Upchurch · 16th July 2010, 07:21 AM

Vatican labels the ordination of women a 'grave crime' to be dealt with in the same way as sex abuse

Quote:

Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared yesterday.

New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests.

Church officials in Rome insisted that the new version of Canon Law showed it was 'very, very serious in its commitment to promote safe environments'.

The Vatican is so amazingly out of touch with reality it makes my head hurt.

brodski · 16th July 2010, 07:28 AM

It seems it's all over the media:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201007162915/

MRC_Hans · 16th July 2010, 07:32 AM

That's great, Vatican! Just keep digging!

The CC really doesn't need enemies at all.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 16th July 2010, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

It seems it's all over the media:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201007162915/

Mmmm, I suspect that one is fake.....

Even the Pope can't be that .... then again ...

Hans

Olowkow · 16th July 2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests.

Namely, none?

AvalonXQ · 16th July 2010, 07:39 AM

Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this.
Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list.
Each one is to be punished "according to the gravity of the crime". The details are left to the Tribunal. Punishment isn't the "same"; it's discretionary.
So what really happened here is that the Catholic Church made it easier to inquire into a punish a whole bunch of offenses by priests, of which both ordaining a woman priest and sex with a minor are two. You have to be looking at things pretty selectively to pick these out and act like the Church is calling them equivalent.

brodski · 16th July 2010, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Namely, none?

I think it means that the Vatican will make sure they are moved from parish to parish and have easy access to a constant supply of women to ordain.

Olowkow · 16th July 2010, 08:08 AM

Je vous prends en "flagrant delit".

Quote:

DELICT

The act by which one person, by fraud or malignity, causes some damage or tort to some other. In its most enlarged sense, it includes all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors; even the injury caused by another, either voluntarily or accidentally without evil intention. However, delicts are more commonly understood as small offences which are punished by a small fine or a short imprisonment.

Word choice is so important. Reading these rules does not instill in me any confidence that their god gives a damn about morals.

Quote:

1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor.

I think they mean no sex with loonies. What about anyone who believes in the priest as a representative of god? (lacks the use of reason) So much for any consensual sex between catholic adults.

Quote:

2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology;

Nice touch. But, hey, you better not let women have any power in the church. Even the internet porn is off limits to those under 18. What a total disaster of morals and reason.

I found only one reference to the word "sex" in the entire document. "Negative spin", my FSM, wake up!

Egg · 16th July 2010, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Vatican labels the ordination of women a 'grave crime' to be dealt with in the same way as sex abuse

The Vatican is so amazingly out of touch with reality it makes my head hurt.

So I guess that means we'll be seeing women priests in the Catholic church soon with the pope's blessing?

Seriously, though, while skepticism may not be the most useful tool in all areas of life, it really does need to be applied when reading reports from The Daily Mail!

sadhatter · 16th July 2010, 08:24 AM

Wow, i thought the church was better at obfuscation that this. Essentially they are saying " well child abuse is bad, but so is all of this stuff".

Why not deal with the issue? Why not pay an unbiased third party to investigate abuse claims? Or maybe have private eyes investigate priests suspected of abuse and make information public so no covering can go on?

No they are not interested in stopping jack, they have the coin to make sure this doesn't happen as often as it is, and to make sure those who do it are never priests again. Yet what is their main goal? To make people focus on other things. Despicable.

HansMustermann · 16th July 2010, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this.
Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list.

Yes, but, see, those _are_ grave offenses too.

Bearing in mind that for the Catholics basically the Host _is_ the body of Christ, and people have been burned and pogroms started over the mere accusation of using one improperly or stealing one. Putting women priests in the same class as _that_ one isn't making it sound any less silly.

Recording a confession, again, seems pretty grave to me. Especially put in the context of catholic doctrine. There is a whole class of thought-crimes... err... deadly sins, a whole 7 of them in fact, who are so grave that they destroy your very link to God and _need_ a priest to get you off the hook. Anything which undermines the church's ability to provide that service is effectively condemning millions of people to Hell, with no appeal, no possibility of parole, do not pass "go", do not collect $200

(Well, if you believe the catholic doctrine about those thought-crimes, anyway.) So, yes, that would be an extremely grave transgression.

Again, putting women ordination on par with that, isn't really any more palatable.

Olowkow · 16th July 2010, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Egg

Seriously, though, while skepticism may not be the most useful tool in all areas of life, it really does need to be applied when reading reports from The Daily Mail!

So true, Substantive Norms just could not possibly be something the RCC would publish. Must be a hoax.

Dave Rogers · 16th July 2010, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this.
Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list.
Each one is to be punished "according to the gravity of the crime". The details are left to the Tribunal. Punishment isn't the "same"; it's discretionary.

Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed.

If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor.

Dave

Olowkow · 16th July 2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Read articles 5 & 6 ~~and 7~~ of the document again

Fixed it.

tsig · 16th July 2010, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed.

If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor.

Dave

Anything that threatens the supremacy of the dicks must be suppressed!!

Toke · 16th July 2010, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I think it means that the Vatican will make sure they are moved from parish to parish and have easy access to a constant supply of women to ordain.

Nomination seconded.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

........
Bearing in mind that for the Catholics basically the Host _is_ the body of Christ, and.....snip

Is that the little biscuits?

Schrodinger's Cat · 16th July 2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed.

If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor.

Dave

Well that and the fact that several extremely high profile bishops/cardinals like Cardinals Law (who resigned AGAINST the wishes of the Vatican) and Cardinal Brady (who is the head of the Church in Ireland) ADMITTED to allowing known pedophile priests to continue to work with children (Brady went so far as to intimidate the children into not coming forward, which he has admitted to) have received no punishment...while a bishop who ordains a woman is automatically excommunicated.

I think it is clear the Church considers ordaining women worse than molesting children.

Actually, it's clear the Vatican does not care about child abuse at all, unless they are legally liable for it. In their latest statement (which I point to in another thread), they stated church officials only need to alert authorities to pedophilia if it is illegal for them not to report a crime. Child abuse just is not a problem to them. It is so little a crime that their official policy is that it is only necessary to report it if they can get arrested for not doing so.

SheldonHelms · 16th July 2010, 11:32 AM

When I read that, I was just sad. As you said, they're just so out of touch with reality.

Foster Zygote · 16th July 2010, 11:44 AM

So,

Raping a child results in one having the church weigh the circumstances and decide on an appropriate course of action.

Treating a woman as equal to a man in administrative and spiritual matters results in immediate expulsion from the Roman Catholic community.

Is it OK if I weep now?

Marduk · 16th July 2010, 11:52 AM

colour me disgusted
I will now ask for an audience with the pope so I can slap some sense into him

Olowkow · 16th July 2010, 11:59 AM

Why is it that the moralist theists do not appear and share in the outrage of us heathens? No, the best we can expect is some technical twisty turny logic in the code of the believer to try to defuse criticism of such behavior. Atheists have no morals, eh? At least I know that 14 year olds in porn is a criminal offense in the US.

sadhatter · 16th July 2010, 12:05 PM

Here is what really angers me about religion.

Let's say i am the president of the us, and try and get women removed from position of political office, and set the punishment for sex with a minor to something small, like a year or two in jail.

I would be ripped apart by both sides. But the pope does basically the same thing and he has support for it.

Disgusting.

Schrodinger's Cat · 16th July 2010, 12:41 PM

The comedian Louis C.K. had a bit recently about all these Catholic defenders of the Church in this scandal (mainly Bishops, Vatican officials, etc), or who minimize the egregiousness of the crime (for instance, by making declarations like we'll only report abuse if we are required to by law).

He states these people also must be pedophiles.

Because there's no gray area with pedophilia. Either you are completely disgusted and outraged by it and want to take all possible steps to end it and punish those who commit such crimes...or you're a pedophile yourself. It's just not the kind of thing were you say, "Well, it's not something I do personally...but I can understand why someone else would do it and sympathize with them..."

Prometheus · 16th July 2010, 10:26 PM

The really twisted thing about this change is that the bastards actually think this recent move is laudable. To them, the idea of ordaining _women has always been a serious offense. They're patting themselves on the back for finally admitting that child rape is almost as bad!

lionking · 16th July 2010, 10:39 PM

Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy?

I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion.

quixotecoyote · 16th July 2010, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy?

I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion.

Perhaps if the CC was a exemplar of justice and equality, we'd merely deride it as a stupid religion, rather than a stupid, evil religion.

Prometheus · 16th July 2010, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy?

I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion.

In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies.

Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject.

lionking · 16th July 2010, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies.

Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject.

Sure, I agree. But do you care who becomes a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the KKK or the Raelians?

"Equal rights for those who want to believe in dangerous crap" just doesn't excite me. Sorry.

HansMustermann · 17th July 2010, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Toke

Is that the little biscuits?

Yeah, the Jesus-flavoured chips

HansMustermann · 17th July 2010, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion.

I dunno, between "stupid and evil" and "stupid, evil and sexist", I can spot the difference. Can't you?

Aepervius · 17th July 2010, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

The comedian Louis C.K. had a bit recently about all these Catholic defenders of the Church in this scandal (mainly Bishops, Vatican officials, etc), or who minimize the egregiousness of the crime (for instance, by making declarations like we'll only report abuse if we are required to by law).

He states these people also must be pedophiles.

Because there's no gray area with pedophilia. Either you are completely disgusted and outraged by it and want to take all possible steps to end it and punish those who commit such crimes...

False dichotomy there is a reason to have a gray area : to positively hate pedophilia, but to avoid breaking the rule of law or to avoid making "pedophilia" a way to circumvant constitutional right.

If you ammend your text with "as long as it is lawful and constitutional" I will agree with you. Otherwise not.

lionking · 17th July 2010, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I dunno, between "stupid and evil" and "stupid, evil and sexist", I can spot the difference. Can't you?

Seriuosly, who cares? I'll grant you "sexist". I anxiously await the next thread - "Nazi's weren't nice people".

Aepervius · 17th July 2010, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies.

Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject.

I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained:
* JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC *explicitely* says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited)
* they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male

I was born in a catholic family and none of my family member seem to realize that as they THEMSELVES expect women priest to come sooner or later. I would not be surprised a majority of the cathos think the same, and only the HIERARCHY really think those wo "deep" reason matters....

Aepervius · 17th July 2010, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Seriuosly, who cares? I'll grant you "sexist". I anxiously await the next thread - "Nazi's weren't nice people".

Nazi weren't nice is a known value. Now a thread on "Nazis weren't nice, and sodomised pigs each week end" would be certaionly worth a new thread.

shadron · 17th July 2010, 02:27 AM

Pope Ben: We'll have hell to pay in the PR department when we publish this judgment about ordaining women, even if the only one's who can be guilty of it are our own bishops. Those feminists will be crawling all over us. Why, oh why, didn't Peter put an end to all this when his serfs started acting up?

Cardinal G'damski: Well, you can't have papal bulls without breaking a few eggs...

Pope Ben: And then there's this thing about punishment for the fiddlers and their confessors. That's going to start up the do-gooders and the lawyers, and the devil Moroni won't have it.

Cardinal G'damski: Canon law is canon law, even when the cannon is pointed....uh, nevermind. You can't just sweep this stuff under the carpentry bench with the Dead Sea scrolls, you know. It would be derelict. When you have Styx of one, a half-dozen of the other, sometimes there's light at the end of the subway.

Pope Ben: Hmmmmm... Really? Do you think maybe the two problems will cancel each other out? Show us being concerned with both the outside and the inside, so to speak? Hey, we could throw in that non-starter about the atheist know-it-all in Minnesota videotaping that priest in flagrante delicto. Yeah, I like it.

And the rest is recent history.

(Don't worry, I'm not giving up my day job.)

HansMustermann · 17th July 2010, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Seriuosly, who cares? I'll grant you "sexist". I anxiously await the next thread - "Nazi's weren't nice people".

Except the actual stuff they did _is_ why they aren't good people. You can't go, basically, "they were evil, but let's not discuss the actual stuff they did." This is not D&D where you can be intrinsically chaotic evil even if you haven't actually done anything wrong. (E.g., if you're a Drow baby.)

The catholic church is stupid and evil... precisely because they pull this kind of stunt where buggering a child is less grave than, god forbid, letting a girl in the boys' treehouse or treating a Scooby-snack... err.... Jesus Snack disrespectfully.

Slimething · 17th July 2010, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The catholic church is stupid and evil... precisely because they pull this kind of stunt where buggering a child is less grave than, god forbid, letting a girl in the boys' treehouse or treating a Scooby-snack... err.... Jesus Snack disrespectfully.

Still, the faithful return. Sad, really. As long as this religion can indoctrinate a few to follow without question, they will have a ready supply of victims.

People need to know that they can leave any church without having to lose their faith. (Their religion, yes; their faith, no.) With any luck, most will realize that religious groups have only as much authority as they give them. Like most abusers, it's the victim that empowers them.

brodski · 17th July 2010, 03:38 AM

I agree with Lionking that, as a non-catholic, I don't give two figs about whether they ordain women or not.
That said, I( am still worried by these rules. The reason that the Catholic church got into so much trouble was because they put the good of the church above protecting children. They thought that protecting the sanctity of the priesthood was more important than bringing child rapists to justice and protecting children.

And with these rules we find that their priorities have not changed- although they now say that raping children is a grave offense, the church is still giving itself more leeway in deciding how they wish to punish offenders than they will with people who commit perfectly legal acts that harm no-one except (in their views) the church.

It shows quite clearly that they still put the good of the church above the good of children (including children in their care). Given the role that the catholic church has in some counties in providing social-care for children, and given the trusted access to children many catholic organizations have- I think this is very worrying, and should be to anyone who cares about the welfare of children, whether they are Catholic or not.

rwguinn · 17th July 2010, 09:01 AM

You folks are using mortal values to evaluate the situation in the eyes of the immortal.
Sins are against the god, not people. So, obviously, the sins of sex with a kid and ordaining females are, in the eyes of the god, equally repugnant.
You have to make it right with the god, not people.If you make amends with the god, whatever people do to you is irrelevant. You get to go to heaven, anyway, which is supposed to be your goal in life...

Rasmus · 17th July 2010, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Slimething

People need to know that they can leave any church without having to lose their faith.

That's not how I think Catholicism works. You cannot be a Catholic without the clergy. Where would oyu go to confession, e.g.?

Quote:

(Their religion, yes; their faith, no.)

How is that supposed to work?

Quote:

With any luck, most will realize that religious groups have only as much authority as they give them. Like most abusers, it's the victim that empowers them.

That is true, if you look at the thing from the outside.

16th July 2010, 07:21 AM	#1
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Vatican labels ordination of women a 'grave crime' on par with sex abuse Vatican labels the ordination of women a 'grave crime' to be dealt with in the same way as sex abuse Quote: Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared yesterday. New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests. Church officials in Rome insisted that the new version of Canon Law showed it was 'very, very serious in its commitment to promote safe environments'. The Vatican is so amazingly out of touch with reality it makes my head hurt.
	Last edited by Upchurch; 16th July 2010 at 07:48 AM.

16th July 2010, 07:28 AM	#2
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	It seems it's all over the media: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201007162915/
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

16th July 2010, 07:32 AM	#3
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	That's great, Vatican! Just keep digging! The CC really doesn't need enemies at all. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

16th July 2010, 07:36 AM	#4
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by brodski It seems it's all over the media: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201007162915/ Mmmm, I suspect that one is fake..... Even the Pope can't be that .... then again ... Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

16th July 2010, 07:37 AM	#5
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	Quote: New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests. Namely, none?
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

16th July 2010, 07:39 AM	#6
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this. Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list. Each one is to be punished "according to the gravity of the crime". The details are left to the Tribunal. Punishment isn't the "same"; it's discretionary. So what really happened here is that the Catholic Church made it easier to inquire into a punish a whole bunch of offenses by priests, of which both ordaining a woman priest and sex with a minor are two. You have to be looking at things pretty selectively to pick these out and act like the Church is calling them equivalent.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 16th July 2010 at 07:40 AM.

16th July 2010, 07:46 AM	#7
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Originally Posted by Olowkow Namely, none? I think it means that the Vatican will make sure they are moved from parish to parish and have easy access to a constant supply of women to ordain.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

16th July 2010, 08:08 AM	#8
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	Je vous prends en "flagrant delit". Quote: DELICT The act by which one person, by fraud or malignity, causes some damage or tort to some other. In its most enlarged sense, it includes all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors; even the injury caused by another, either voluntarily or accidentally without evil intention. However, *delicts are more commonly understood as small offences* which are punished by a small fine or a short imprisonment. Word choice is so important. Reading these rules does not instill in me any confidence that their god gives a damn about morals. Quote: 1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor. I think they mean no sex with loonies. What about anyone who believes in the priest as a representative of god? (lacks the use of reason) So much for any consensual sex between catholic adults. Quote: 2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen**, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology; Nice touch. But, hey, you better not let women have any power in the church. Even the internet porn is off limits to those under 18. What a total disaster of morals and reason. I found only one reference to the word "sex" in the entire document. "Negative spin", my FSM, wake up!
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare Last edited by Olowkow; 16th July 2010 at 08:17 AM.

16th July 2010, 08:22 AM	#9
Egg Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,241	Originally Posted by Upchurch Vatican labels the ordination of women a 'grave crime' to be dealt with in the same way as sex abuse The Vatican is so amazingly out of touch with reality it makes my head hurt. So I guess that means we'll be seeing women priests in the Catholic church soon with the pope's blessing? Seriously, though, while skepticism may not be the most useful tool in all areas of life, it really does need to be applied when reading reports from The Daily Mail!
Egg Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,241	__________________ _{"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel} _{"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler} _{“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb} _{“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer}

16th July 2010, 08:24 AM	#10
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Wow, i thought the church was better at obfuscation that this. Essentially they are saying " well child abuse is bad, but so is all of this stuff". Why not deal with the issue? Why not pay an unbiased third party to investigate abuse claims? Or maybe have private eyes investigate priests suspected of abuse and make information public so no covering can go on? No they are not interested in stopping jack, they have the coin to make sure this doesn't happen as often as it is, and to make sure those who do it are never priests again. Yet what is their main goal? To make people focus on other things. Despicable.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

16th July 2010, 08:29 AM	#11
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this. Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list. Yes, but, see, those _are_ grave offenses too. Bearing in mind that for the Catholics basically the Host _is_ the body of Christ, and people have been burned and pogroms started over the mere accusation of using one improperly or stealing one. Putting women priests in the same class as _that_ one isn't making it sound any less silly. Recording a confession, again, seems pretty grave to me. Especially put in the context of catholic doctrine. There is a whole class of thought-crimes... err... deadly sins, a whole 7 of them in fact, who are so grave that they destroy your very link to God and _need_ a priest to get you off the hook. Anything which undermines the church's ability to provide that service is effectively condemning millions of people to Hell, with no appeal, no possibility of parole, do not pass "go", do not collect $200 (Well, if you believe the catholic doctrine about those thought-crimes, anyway.) So, yes, that would be an extremely grave transgression. Again, putting women ordination on par with that, isn't really any more palatable.

16th July 2010, 08:31 AM	#12
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	Originally Posted by Egg Seriously, though, while skepticism may not be the most useful tool in all areas of life, it really does need to be applied when reading reports from The Daily Mail! So true, Substantive Norms just could not possibly be something the RCC would publish. Must be a hoax.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

16th July 2010, 08:58 AM	#13
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Having reviewed the actual rules put into effect, this is a pretty ridiculously negative spin to put on this. Several offenses are listed as "grave delicts", including: Being disrespectful with the Host, trying to record a confession, ordaining a woman, sex with a minor, absolving someone else of having sex with a minor... there's a big long list. Each one is to be punished "according to the gravity of the crime". The details are left to the Tribunal. Punishment isn't the "same"; it's discretionary. Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed. If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

16th July 2010, 09:13 AM	#14
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	Quote: Read articles 5 & 6 ~~and 7~~ of the document again Fixed it.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

16th July 2010, 09:15 AM	#15
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed. If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor. Dave Anything that threatens the supremacy of the dicks must be suppressed!!

16th July 2010, 11:08 AM	#16
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,619	Originally Posted by brodski I think it means that the Vatican will make sure they are moved from parish to parish and have easy access to a constant supply of women to ordain. Nomination seconded. Originally Posted by HansMustermann ........ Bearing in mind that for the Catholics basically the Host _is_ the body of Christ, and.....snip Is that the little biscuits?
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

16th July 2010, 11:31 AM	#17
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Except that it isn't for ordination of women. Read articles 6 and 7 of the document again; you'll see that ordination of women is to be punished by excommunication, with no discretion implied. Punishment for sex with a minor, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary; there's no minimum sanction listed. If anything, I'd say the actual rules put an even worse spin on this. They are, in effect, treating the ordination of women as more serious than sexual molestation of a minor. Dave Well that and the fact that several extremely high profile bishops/cardinals like Cardinals Law (who resigned AGAINST the wishes of the Vatican) and Cardinal Brady (who is the head of the Church in Ireland) ADMITTED to allowing known pedophile priests to continue to work with children (Brady went so far as to intimidate the children into not coming forward, which he has admitted to) have received no punishment...while a bishop who ordains a woman is automatically excommunicated. I think it is clear the Church considers ordaining women worse than molesting children. Actually, it's clear the Vatican does not care about child abuse at all, unless they are legally liable for it. In their latest statement (which I point to in another thread), they stated church officials only need to alert authorities to pedophilia if it is illegal for them not to report a crime. Child abuse just is not a problem to them. It is so little a crime that their official policy is that it is only necessary to report it if they can get arrested for not doing so.
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Last edited by Schrodinger's Cat; 16th July 2010 at 11:39 AM.

16th July 2010, 11:32 AM	#18
SheldonHelms New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 16	When I read that, I was just sad. As you said, they're just so out of touch with reality.
SheldonHelms New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 16

16th July 2010, 11:44 AM	#19
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	So, Raping a child results in one having the church weigh the circumstances and decide on an appropriate course of action. Treating a woman as equal to a man in administrative and spiritual matters results in immediate expulsion from the Roman Catholic community. Is it OK if I weep now?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

16th July 2010, 11:52 AM	#20
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	colour me disgusted I will now ask for an audience with the pope so I can slap some sense into him

16th July 2010, 11:59 AM	#21
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	Why is it that the moralist theists do not appear and share in the outrage of us heathens? No, the best we can expect is some technical twisty turny logic in the code of the believer to try to defuse criticism of such behavior. Atheists have no morals, eh? At least I know that 14 year olds in porn is a criminal offense in the US.
Olowkow Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,928	__________________ Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

16th July 2010, 12:05 PM	#22
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Here is what really angers me about religion. Let's say i am the president of the us, and try and get women removed from position of political office, and set the punishment for sex with a minor to something small, like a year or two in jail. I would be ripped apart by both sides. But the pope does basically the same thing and he has support for it. Disgusting.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

16th July 2010, 12:41 PM	#23
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	The comedian Louis C.K. had a bit recently about all these Catholic defenders of the Church in this scandal (mainly Bishops, Vatican officials, etc), or who minimize the egregiousness of the crime (for instance, by making declarations like we'll only report abuse if we are required to by law). He states these people also must be pedophiles. Because there's no gray area with pedophilia. Either you are completely disgusted and outraged by it and want to take all possible steps to end it and punish those who commit such crimes...or you're a pedophile yourself. It's just not the kind of thing were you say, "Well, it's not something I do personally...but I can understand why someone else would do it and sympathize with them..."
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499

16th July 2010, 10:26 PM	#24
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,272	The really twisted thing about this change is that the bastards actually think this recent move is laudable. To them, the idea of ordaining _women has always been a serious offense. They're patting themselves on the back for finally admitting that child rape is almost as bad!
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. Last edited by Prometheus; 16th July 2010 at 10:27 PM.

16th July 2010, 10:39 PM	#25
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy? I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill Last edited by lionking; 16th July 2010 at 10:40 PM.

16th July 2010, 10:44 PM	#26
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by lionking Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy? I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion. Perhaps if the CC was a exemplar of justice and equality, we'd merely deride it as a stupid religion, rather than a stupid, evil religion.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

16th July 2010, 11:18 PM	#27
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,272	Originally Posted by lionking Of course paedophilia is wrong by any measure and can't be equated to the ordination of women as a "sin", but can't a club decide it's membership policy? I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion. In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies. Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject.
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

16th July 2010, 11:32 PM	#28
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by Prometheus In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies. Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject. Sure, I agree. But do you care who becomes a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the KKK or the Raelians? "Equal rights for those who want to believe in dangerous crap" just doesn't excite me. Sorry.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

17th July 2010, 12:12 AM	#29
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by Toke Is that the little biscuits? Yeah, the Jesus-flavoured chips

17th July 2010, 12:17 AM	#30
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by lionking I find it somewhat strange that so many say "catholicism is stupid, evil etc" and then follow up with "how unfair is the CC not allowing women to officiate their stupid, evil religion". Ordination of women is a non-issue in my opinion. I dunno, between "stupid and evil" and "stupid, evil and sexist", I can spot the difference. Can't you?

17th July 2010, 12:47 AM	#31
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat The comedian Louis C.K. had a bit recently about all these Catholic defenders of the Church in this scandal (mainly Bishops, Vatican officials, etc), or who minimize the egregiousness of the crime (for instance, by making declarations like we'll only report abuse if we are required to by law). He states these people also must be pedophiles. Because there's no gray area with pedophilia. Either you are completely disgusted and outraged by it and want to take all possible steps to end it and punish those who commit such crimes... False dichotomy there is a reason to have a gray area : to positively hate pedophilia, but to avoid breaking the rule of law or to avoid making "pedophilia" a way to circumvant constitutional right. If you ammend your text with "as long as it is lawful and constitutional" I will agree with you. Otherwise not.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

17th July 2010, 12:50 AM	#32
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I dunno, between "stupid and evil" and "stupid, evil and sexist", I can spot the difference. Can't you? Seriuosly, who cares? I'll grant you "sexist". I anxiously await the next thread - "Nazi's weren't nice people".
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

17th July 2010, 12:59 AM	#33
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by Prometheus In the U.S., often the answer to that question is, "No." Quite a few private organizations have been forced by the justice system to alter their membership policies. Regardless, choosing their own members is not what the church fathers think that they're doing. The prohibition of ordaining women actually is at the very core of Catholic dogma. They really do think it's worse than child abuse. Here's an interesting bit of apologetics on the subject. I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained: * JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC explicitely says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited) * they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male I was born in a catholic family and none of my family member seem to realize that as they THEMSELVES expect women priest to come sooner or later. I would not be surprised a majority of the cathos think the same, and only the HIERARCHY really think those wo "deep" reason matters....
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 17th July 2010 at 01:01 AM.

17th July 2010, 01:01 AM	#34
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by lionking Seriuosly, who cares? I'll grant you "sexist". I anxiously await the next thread - "Nazi's weren't nice people". Nazi weren't nice is a known value. Now a thread on "Nazis weren't nice, and sodomised pigs each week end" would be certaionly worth a new thread.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

17th July 2010, 02:27 AM	#35
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Pope Ben: We'll have hell to pay in the PR department when we publish this judgment about ordaining women, even if the only one's who can be guilty of it are our own bishops. Those feminists will be crawling all over us. Why, oh why, didn't Peter put an end to all this when his serfs started acting up? Cardinal G'damski: Well, you can't have papal bulls without breaking a few eggs... Pope Ben: And then there's this thing about punishment for the fiddlers and their confessors. That's going to start up the do-gooders and the lawyers, and the devil Moroni won't have it. Cardinal G'damski: Canon law is canon law, even when the cannon is pointed....uh, nevermind. You can't just sweep this stuff under the carpentry bench with the Dead Sea scrolls, you know. It would be derelict. When you have Styx of one, a half-dozen of the other, sometimes there's light at the end of the subway. Pope Ben: Hmmmmm... Really? Do you think maybe the two problems will cancel each other out? Show us being concerned with both the outside and the inside, so to speak? Hey, we could throw in that non-starter about the atheist know-it-all in Minnesota videotaping that priest in flagrante delicto. Yeah, I like it. And the rest is recent history. (Don't worry, I'm not giving up my day job.)
	Last edited by shadron; 17th July 2010 at 02:30 AM.