NationStates Jolt Archive

Pope Benny and Co. coming to you with more BS. You would think, with declining numbers in the priesthood and with the scandals concerning pedophile priests, the Vacantican would enthusiastically accept women in the priesthood. It seems like they just want the Church to go down fighting for more reactionary stupidity. And using that specious comment about Christ only having male disciples to justify their untenable stance leads me to believe that, unless the leadership of this hoary old mausoleum radically changes it's attitude, it deserves to die.

Vatican will excommunicate female priests
Explicit decree punishes women, bishops who ordain them

updated 1:48 p.m. MT, Thurs., May. 29, 2008
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of female priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the church's existing ban on female priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

"I think the reason they're doing this is that they've realized there is more and more support among Catholics for ordaining women, and they want to make clear that this is a no-no," Reese said.

The church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Proponents of women's ordination said Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time.

They cite the letters of Saint Paul, some of the earliest texts of Christianity, to show that women played important roles in the early church.

there is no possibility of ordaining women as priests in the roman catholic church without the express permission of the pope. it would be unreasonable of him to allow such ordinations to proceed as if they were legitimate.

there is no possibility of ordaining women as priests in the roman catholic church without the express permission of the pope. it would be unreasonable of him to allow such ordinations to proceed as if they were legitimate.

Why? It's irrational for him not to.

I can see the idea of female priests legitimately molesting choirboys would still be considered unorthodox.

Well, I'm glad that joke's out of the way.

Why? It's irrational for him not to.

its his show. he has decided against it. why would he accept the ordination of anyone that he has expressly denied ordination to?

If it is true that all of Jesus' apostles were men(arguable that Mary Magdalene was not only an apostle, but his closest apostle but let's forego that for now), therefore only men can be priests, then I think it only fitting that all catholic priests be jews. *nod*

Actually, the major problem with the ordination of women in the Church is the fact that being ordained as a priest is the same as marrying the Church. As the Church is the Bride of Christ...priests have to be male.

I will say this is a slightly simplified argument, but still makes the point.

This sounds exceedingly silly.

*facepalm*

Unneccesary. Immediate excomm? Why? We know there shouldn't be any females. We get it. Really.

Actually, the major problem with the ordination of women in the Church is the fact that being ordained as a priest is the same as marrying the Church. As the Church is the Bride of Christ...priests have to be male.

I will say this is a slightly simplified argument, but still makes the point.

Oh, so polygamy is okay then?

I thought that was just the Mormons. :D

If it is true that all of Jesus' apostles were men(arguable that Mary Magdalene was not only an apostle, but his closest apostle but let's forego that for now), therefore only men can be priests, then I think it only fitting that all catholic priests be jews. *nod*

Seconded.

Funny how the early church never spoke out against female teachers, even Paul. He commended many of them in leadership positions in many of his letters. I wonder what the Vatican is thinking? Oh yes, that is right, they aren't thinking.

Why? It's irrational for him not to.


One man's concept of what is logical and what isn't can be very different from everyone else. I'm not condoning the Pope's actions, but I am saying that, from his position, his decision was the most logical for whatever his priorities are.

If there was a good reason for women to be priests, the Church would have made it so already. They can be nuns, they should be happy with that. It's not like they are shut out of the Church

If it is true that all of Jesus' apostles were men(arguable that Mary Magdalene was not only an apostle, but his closest apostle but let's forego that for now), therefore only men can be priests, then I think it only fitting that all catholic priests be jews. *nod*
WIN! Have 20,000 internets!

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!

because being a nun, is not the same than being a priest... priests can do many things that nuns can't

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!

Umm, they can. It's called being a brother/monk. Try again.

Well then, by the power vested in me as Pope I shall not only de-excommunicate them, but for good measure and to make sure this can not happen again re-excommunicate them and then de-re-excommunicate them no take backs. I shall also make them all saints and ask anyone who meets these female priests to explain to them that no mortal, including a Pope, has the power to cut them off from their god or any other god in anyway shape or form. Does anyone have Pope Joe's e-mail so my lazy ass doesn't have to look it up on google?

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!

There have been male nuns before.

http://www.impawards.com/1990/posters/nuns_on_the_run.jpg

While I disagree with the Vatican stance on women, it is the way it is. As such, this is hardly news, and not worth getting your knickers in a twist.

*facepalm*

Unneccesary. Immediate excomm? Why? We know there shouldn't be any females. We get it. Really.

of course its necessary. its not a matter of "ohmygod they are trying to ordain WOMEN!" its a matter of "its not your decision, its mine"

Proponents of women's ordination said Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time. [/I]

This is, in fact, wrong. If He was following the 'social norms' of His time, Jesus would not have associated with the lowest people within society.

While I dont always agree with all that the church has taught, I believe that this decision it not really ours to make. The pope has spoken, and as he is God's representative here on earth, there is nothing else to say.

:cool:

its his show. he has decided against it. why would he accept the ordination of anyone that he has expressly denied ordination to?

True, another nail in the coffin of Catholisim. Long live the Pope!

True, another nail in the coffin of Catholisim. Long live the Pope!

insisting on a celebate, all-male priesthood is quite the problem for the church. it seems that the pope would rather close churches than do what might need to be done to ensure enough priests to serve in them. maybe the next guy will make a different decision.

insisting on a celebate, all-male priesthood is quite the problem for the church. it seems that the pope would rather close churches than do what might need to be done to ensure enough priests to serve in them. maybe the next guy will make a different decision.

It's a hard one for the Church. They can't really modernise their dogma wont let them, so I guess they are doomed in the long run.

It's a hard one for the Church. They can't really modernise their dogma wont let them, so I guess they are doomed in the long run.

there are some things they can do other than ordain women priests. allowing priests to be married would do it--after all, the apostles were married. allowing a temporary vow of the priesthood would do it--sign up for 10-20 years knowing that by the time you are 40 you can have a wife and family.

oddly enough, the church does allow married anglican priests to convert to roman catholicism and be priests in the church while having a wife and family.

I would respect the Catholics a lot more if they'd just come out and say specifically what it is about having a vagina that makes somebody unable to be a priest. They always just hem and haw about how that's how it is and woe is us we just can't buck tradition. Cowards.

I don't agree with the pope's decision BUT any change on women in the priesthood will have to come from within the church and people getting all hot and bothered about it on the forums isn't going to change anything. The same can be said for the celebacy argument. Myself i'm also in favour of priests being allowed to marry, like they can in the Churches of England or Ireland for example. But the argument that this is "the final nail on Catholicism's coffin" is really an empty one. Churches like the church of England and the church of ireland have seen their numbers drop even further over the last 10 years despite the reforms mentioned above. Infact it's estimated there's now more practicing Catholics in England than practicing Protestants. It's the strictness of Catholicism that keeps people from converting, (Catholic guilt and all that). Also the argument that in the churches eyes women being ordained as priests is against the teachings of the bible and to be a true "Christian" church it should follow the bible instead of giving in to pragmatism. I'm not agreeing with their stance though as pragmatism would be the best option here, but i'm not going to kick up such a fuss over it as some have here.

Why? It's irrational for him not to.
Catholicism is not rational.

Actually, the major problem with the ordination of women in the Church is the fact that being ordained as a priest is the same as marrying the Church. As the Church is the Bride of Christ...priests have to be male.

I will say this is a slightly simplified argument, but still makes the point.

So essentially you are saying that becoming a priest is a gay marriage to Christ so you couldn't possibly have women priests? Never realised Catholics were such cutting edge leaders on the question of gay marriages.

So essentially you are saying that becoming a priest is a gay marriage to Christ so you couldn't possibly have women priests? Never realised Catholics were such cutting edge leaders on the question of gay marriages.

If you'd read the post you'd have seen it said the Church is "the BRIDE of Christ" so no by that argument becoming a FEMALE priest would be a gay marriage to the Church.

If you'd read the post you'd have seen it said the Church is "the BRIDE of Christ" so no by that argument becoming a FEMALE priest would be a gay marriage to the Church.

Surely the Church is simply the people who worship, of both genders, so how it can be described as a bride defeats me. Hence either gender could be priests?

If you'd read the post you'd have seen it said the Church is "the BRIDE of Christ" so no by that argument becoming a FEMALE priest would be a gay marriage to the Church.

Polyandry FTW!
I never thought that Jesus took sharing to such extremes...

If you'd read the post you'd have seen it said the Church is "the BRIDE of Christ" so no by that argument becoming a FEMALE priest would be a gay marriage to the Church.
I assume, then, that a nun's relationship to the Church is therefore less meaningful or deep than a monk's relationship to the Church? After all, if a monk or priest can "marry" the Church, but a woman could not because it would be "gay marriage" due to the Church's femaleness, then life-long nuns, abbesses, and sisters clearly must be regarded as fundamentally inferior to males in terms of their commitment and relationship to the church.

Which is particularly odd given that nuns are also sometimes called "brides of Christ."

I don't agree with the pope's decision BUT any change on women in the priesthood will have to come from within the church and people getting all hot and bothered about it on the forums isn't going to change anything. The same can be said for the celebacy argument. Myself i'm also in favour of priests being allowed to marry, like they can in the Churches of England or Ireland for example. But the argument that this is "the final nail on Catholicism's coffin" is really an empty one. Churches like the church of England and the church of ireland have seen their numbers drop even further over the last 10 years despite the reforms mentioned above. Infact it's estimated there's now more practicing Catholics in England than practicing Protestants. It's the strictness of Catholicism that keeps people from converting, (Catholic guilt and all that). Also the argument that in the churches eyes women being ordained as priests is against the teachings of the bible and to be a true "Christian" church it should follow the bible instead of giving in to pragmatism. I'm not agreeing with their stance though as pragmatism would be the best option here, but i'm not going to kick up such a fuss over it as some have here.

Fair comment, just so you know though, there is no argument regarding 'another nail in the coffin' more like a prophetic and hopeful statement.:D

I assume, then, that a nun's relationship to the Church is therefore less meaningful or deep than a monk's relationship to the Church? After all, if a monk or priest can "marry" the Church, but a woman could not because it would be "gay marriage" due to the Church's femaleness, then life-long nuns, abbesses, and sisters clearly must be regarded as fundamentally inferior to males in terms of their commitment and relationship to the church.

Which is particularly odd given that nuns are also sometimes called "brides of Christ."

Yes indeed, and as Christ is married to both the nuns, and the Church does that make bigomy okay in Christianity?

The vatican excommunicating female priests would seem quite an acceptable approach to take, considering any priest that attempts to perform duties will accept the authority of Rome as their defining structure.

Women in leadership, must not be examined from a secular point of view in regard to the church, instead it must be examined with a biblical worldview which is far more apt in understanding and directing church leadership methods.

The vatican in my opinion is quite right to reject women in leadership as an authority, but must not limit women to using their God given gifts for the betterment of the church.

It is clear that women are not to be the final authority in a local church setting, demonstrated by the continuation of the patriarch system through the old and new testaments, Pauls rebuke in Timothy 3, and the vast examples of male leadership, with women merely being a dotted breakout occurrence.

1 Peter clearly points out as does Genesis chapter 2 that all men and women are equal in the eyes of God, however the bible goes on to explain that while we are equal function may not necessarily be the same.

This is the clear founding of the Christian family structure, and since the church can more aptly be described as a family of families from the greek we must instead from a Christian perspective relate how 1 Peter and the family structure would be effected if the same system was rejected in other parts of the Christian walk.

I would dare to say, that many women wanting leadership in my experience has not been out of the desire to serve, but has been far more out of the desire to gain position, which is utterly contrary to the methodology of Christian leadership and discipleship.

A true leader within the church can be categorised as a servant of servants.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address other fallacies within the opening posters post. The Catholic church is in fact growing globally, most notably within Asia, America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and in part Africa. Decline is only within the small nook and cranny of Western Civilisation, which even here has tapered off and is beginning to see a resurgence.

Your outdated figures and common stereotypical viewpoint requires adjusting.

Secondly Jesus Christ cared little for the cultural normative for his day and age, and instead, if he desired to change something, he would have certainly done it.

Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. God was not, and is not bound by human culture. If he saw it as injustice (Example temple bartering) then he certainly would have challenged it in his teachings.

Yes indeed, and as Christ is married to both the nuns, and the Church does that make bigomy okay in Christianity?

Don't be childish, the church being the bride of Christ is a simple metaphor to expalin the love between His people and Christ and Christ to his people. Which may I add is very true.

Oh, so polygamy is okay then?

I thought that was just the Mormons. :D

Zing!

there are some things they can do other than ordain women priests. allowing priests to be married would do it--after all, the apostles were married. allowing a temporary vow of the priesthood would do it--sign up for 10-20 years knowing that by the time you are 40 you can have a wife and family.

oddly enough, the church does allow married anglican priests to convert to roman catholicism and be priests in the church while having a wife and family.

Actually, in certain conditions and situations, even full-fledged Catholic priests are allowed to marry. It's pretty rare though.

I assume, then, that a nun's relationship to the Church is therefore less meaningful or deep than a monk's relationship to the Church? After all, if a monk or priest can "marry" the Church, but a woman could not because it would be "gay marriage" due to the Church's femaleness, then life-long nuns, abbesses, and sisters clearly must be regarded as fundamentally inferior to males in terms of their commitment and relationship to the church.

Which is particularly odd given that nuns are also sometimes called "brides of Christ."

Nun's relationships are described as married to God/Christ, while priests are describen as married to the Church.

Yes indeed, and as Christ is married to both the nuns, and the Church does that make bigomy okay in Christianity?

Don't be childish, the church being the bride of Christ is a simple metaphor to expalin the love and convenant relationship which exists between him and his people.

Don't be childish, the church being the bride of Christ is a simple metaphor to expalin the love between His people and Christ and Christ to his people. Which may I add is very true.

Ohhh *pouts* please let me be childish!

So then if it is simpley metaphor, who ever was speiling about it being a valid reason for the non ordination of women was bullshiting.

It is clear that women are not to be the final authority in a local church setting, demonstrated by the continuation of the patriarch system through the old and new testaments, Pauls rebuke in Timothy 3, and the vast examples of male leadership, with women merely being a dotted breakout occurrence.


I was under the impression that women as leaders was very common in the early Christian Church, and was suppressed at the same time as the Gnostic Gospels.

Women in leadership, must not be examined from a secular point of view in regard to the church, instead it must be examined with a biblical worldview which is far more apt in understanding and directing church leadership methods.
Biblical worldview depends on the interpreter.

The predominant church in my country accepts female priests and priests having sex (though only in marriage).

Heck, discriminating against female priests is ILLEGAL in our country because it falls under discrimination by gender.

The catholic church should get its head out of its medieval ass and step into the 17th century, or beyond.

The vatican excommunicating female priests would seem quite an acceptable approach to take, considering any priest that attempts to perform duties will accept the authority of Rome as their defining structure.

Women in leadership, must not be examined from a secular point of view in regard to the church, instead it must be examined with a biblical worldview which is far more apt in understanding and directing church leadership methods.

The vatican in my opinion is quite right to reject women in leadership as an authority, but must not limit women to using their God given gifts for the betterment of the church.

It is clear that women are not to be the final authority in a local church setting, demonstrated by the continuation of the patriarch system through the old and new testaments, Pauls rebuke in Timothy 3, and the vast examples of male leadership, with women merely being a dotted breakout occurrence.

1 Peter clearly points out as does Genesis chapter 2 that all men and women are equal in the eyes of God, however the bible goes on to explain that while we are equal function may not necessarily be the same.

This is the clear founding of the Christian family structure, and since the church can more aptly be described as a family of families from the greek we must instead from a Christian perspective relate how 1 Peter and the family structure would be effected if the same system was rejected in other parts of the Christian walk.

I would dare to say, that many women wanting leadership in my experience has not been out of the desire to serve, but has been far more out of the desire to gain position, which is utterly contrary to the methodology of Christian leadership and discipleship.

A true leader within the church can be categorised as a servant of servants.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address other fallacies within the opening posters post. The Catholic church is in fact growing globally, most notably within Asia, America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and in part Africa. Decline is only within the small nook and cranny of Western Civilisation, which even here has tapered off and is beginning to see a resurgence.

Your outdated figures and common stereotypical viewpoint requires adjusting.

Secondly Jesus Christ cared little for the cultural normative for his day and age, and instead, if he desired to change something, he would have certainly done it.

Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. God was not, and is not bound by human culture. If he saw it as injustice (Example temple bartering) then he certainly would have challenged it in his teachings.

Well done.

Nun's relationships are described as married to God/Christ, while priests are describen as married to the Church.

Yes, we that's not true.

The vatican needs to explain their biblical basis for that one.

We are all brides of Christ male and female. God only sees the person and not the position. The position is merely an office to enable a function to help the body. Hardly changes your relationship with God at all.

Don't be childish, the church being the bride of Christ is a simple metaphor to expalin the love and convenant relationship which exists between him and his people.

If it implies that women cannot be priests surely it is also implying that men cannot be part of the church as they cannot be brides of Christ - or is this all really a cover story to hide the real reasons?

Biblical worldview depends on the interpreter.

The predominant church in my country accepts female priests and priests having sex (though only in marriage).

Heck, discriminating against female priests is ILLEGAL in our country because it falls under discrimination by gender.

The catholic church should get its head out of its medieval ass and step into the 17th century, or beyond.

Do you mean illegal in a secular way? Because that's not actually true, otherwise there would have to be female priests in American Catholic Churches and there are not.

Pope Benny and Co. coming to you with more BS. You would think, with declining numbers in the priesthood and with the scandals concerning pedophile priests, the Vacantican would enthusiastically accept women in the priesthood. It seems like they just want the Church to go down fighting for more reactionary stupidity. And using that specious comment about Christ only having male disciples to justify their untenable stance leads me to believe that, unless the leadership of this hoary old mausoleum radically changes it's attitude, it deserves to die.

Vatican will excommunicate female priests
Explicit decree punishes women, bishops who ordain them

updated 1:48 p.m. MT, Thurs., May. 29, 2008
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of female priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the church's existing ban on female priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

"I think the reason they're doing this is that they've realized there is more and more support among Catholics for ordaining women, and they want to make clear that this is a no-no," Reese said.

The church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Proponents of women's ordination said Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time.

They cite the letters of Saint Paul, some of the earliest texts of Christianity, to show that women played important roles in the early church.

The Catholic Celtic Church was a mixed society where nuns and monks lived together in community and equality. Women and men were both called into serving God with the same rights. The Church of Rome ended that. There isn't any reason under heaven not to let a woman be ordained and become a priestess if that's her calling. This only shows us how machista the Catholic Church, after 1,500+ years of history. It's like it has been untouched by the times. Suspended in gender prejudices...

The Catholic Celtic Church was a mixed society where nuns and monks lived together in community and equality. Women and men were both called into serving God with the same rights. The Church of Rome ended that. There isn't any reason under heaven not to let a woman be ordained and become a priestess if that's her calling. This only shows us how machista the Catholic Church, after 1,500+ years of history. It's like it has been untouched by the times. Suspended in gender prejudices...

Actually, prior to the Romanization of the Church there were neither nuns nor monks, per se. Also, Paul's writings make it clear that women were not in leadership positions at the time.

Suspended in gender prejudices...
Suspended in the friggin' dark ages is more like it.

If it implies that women cannot be priests surely it is also implying that men cannot be part of the church as they cannot be brides of Christ - or is this all really a cover story to hide the real reasons?

A lot of their reasonign as to why women can't be priests is rubbish, but the same conclusion is correct with the biblical perspective.

Ignore the catholic position in regard to nuns and priests their relationship to the church as it's all the same.

The bible has far clearer reasons as to why women are not to be in leadership, and I have no idea why some catholics have to make this stuff up.

The Catholic Celtic Church was a mixed society where nuns and monks lived together in community and equality. Women and men were both called into serving God with the same rights. The Church of Rome ended that. There isn't any reason under heaven not to let a woman be ordained and become a priestess if that's her calling. This only shows us how machista the Catholic Church, after 1,500+ years of history. It's like it has been untouched by the times. Suspended in gender prejudices...

Ignorant.

Once again you are judging something which takes joy in not conforming to the pluralistic do whatever you please society that we have today, by your own pluralistic worldview.

In making any comments about church doctrine you must challenge the church from a biblical basis and not one of common culture.

Try again and stop regurgitating already re-said statements.

The Catholic Celtic Church was a mixed society where nuns and monks lived together in community and equality. Women and men were both called into serving God with the same rights. The Church of Rome ended that. There isn't any reason under heaven not to let a woman be ordained and become a priestess if that's her calling. This only shows us how machista the Catholic Church, after 1,500+ years of history. It's like it has been untouched by the times. Suspended in gender prejudices...

The latest explanation I got from a catholic priest a few years back was that the church is gaining members in South America, Asia and Africa. And those cultures couldn't possibly be confronted with female priests, as females were second rate human beings in their understanding. So the church won't ordain women....


Load of bollocks, if you ask me. But then again, it's been a very long time since I last heard something from the catholic church that wasn't, really.

Actually, prior to the Romanization of the Church there were neither nuns nor monks, per se. Also, Paul's writings make it clear that women were not in leadership positions at the time.

We don't care about the Catholic celtic church.

Give me scripture. If they did it a certain way it hardly makes it right.

Scripture please.

The bible has far clearer reasons as to why women are not to be in leadership
What bible says depends on the reader and his or her agenda.

There are plenty of Christian churches out there with female priests...Are you suggesting they don't follow the message of the bible?

Can ANY mortal be an authority to criticize them?

The latest explanation I got from a catholic priest a few years back was that the church is gaining members in South America, Asia and Africa. And those cultures couldn't possibly be confronted with female priests, as females were second rate human beings in their understanding. So the church won't ordain women....


Load of bollocks, if you ask me. But then again, it's been a very long time since I last heard something from the catholic church that wasn't, really.

Indeed, they are not facing the issue with the simple statement "the bible says".

If theys topped avoiding the issue and came out with the biblical basis that i'm sure it would make it a lot easier for the understanding of the mulitudes if you agree or disagree with it, at least you would know and understand why.

Indeed, they are not facing the issue with the simple statement "the bible says".

If theys topped avoiding the issue and came out with the biblical basis that i'm sure it would make it a lot easier for the understanding of the mulitudes if you agree or disagree with it, at least you would know and understand why.

Well, the biblical explanation they're offering is even more shakey than that example. Maybe that's why they try avoid using it as far as possible and rather go scouting for other excuses?

What bible says depends on the reader and his or her agenda.

There are plenty of Christian churches out there with female priests...Are you suggesting they don't follow the message of the bible?

Can ANY mortal be an authority to criticize them?

Yes, I can.

The simply problem of many churches out there is that they are making easy choices through a bad exegesis. Most churches that have women clergy are exceptionaly liberal in their theology, which in itself requries the deletion of large portions of scripture.

And I entirely disagree with your first point. It does not entirely disagree on the reader and his/her agenda. It depends upon the WRITER and HIS/HER CULTURE and to WHO HE/SHE was WRITING TO and WHY.

That is the proper way to exegete the proper meaning of any ancient text.

We don't care about the Catholic celtic church.

Give me scripture. If they did it a certain way it hardly makes it right.

Scripture please.

Whoa hold on I'm trying to agree with you here. I'm talking about the primitive church during the time the Gospels were still being written. I'm talking about how Paul's letters make it clear that, despite what another poster was saying, women were never in leadership positions, even before the church integrated with Rome.

Yes, I can.

The simply problem of many churches out there is that they are making easy choices through a bad exegesis. Most churches that have women clergy are exceptionaly liberal in their theology, which in itself requries the deletion of large portions of scripture.

And I entirely disagree with your first point. It does not entirely disagree on the reader and his/her agenda. It depends upon the WRITER and HIS/HER CULTURE and to WHO HE/SHE was WRITING TO and WHY.

That is the proper way to exegete the proper meaning of any ancient text.

*lol
Show me one church that doesn't disregard large portions of scripture...

What bible says depends on the reader and his or her agenda.

There are plenty of Christian churches out there with female priests...Are you suggesting they don't follow the message of the bible?

Can ANY mortal be an authority to criticize them?

Those that study the bible technically yes. Churches with female priests are pragmatic and come from the widespread public support of female priests in those communities, whereas Catholics in general do not actually support women priests, i think that's an argument lost on a lot of people here, that there are a lot of Catholcis, probably in the majority who would support the pope's position. I fall into the minority there because i do believe in women priests but from my own personal experience, even female catholics in general do not support women priests, which i think is a shame because it galvanizes the pope's position on this point.

Those that study the bible technically yes. Churches with female priests are pragmatic and come from the widespread public support of female priests in those communities, whereas Catholics in general do not actually support women priests, i think that's an argument lost on a lot of people here, that there are a lot of Catholcis, probably in the majority who would support the pope's position. I fall into the minority there because i do believe in women priests but from my own personal experience, even female catholics in general do not support women priests, which i think is a shame because it galvanizes the pope's position on this point.

I understand that female priests weren't exactly popular in the UK either, when the Church of England ordained the first women.
Now, most people just got used to it...

Actually, prior to the Romanization of the Church there were neither nuns nor monks, per se. Also, Paul's writings make it clear that women were not in leadership positions at the time.

I'm referring to the Celtic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity), which developed parallel to the Romanization of the Church in the 6th. and 7th. centuries.

These renewed links with the greater Latin West brought the Celtic-speaking peoples into close contact with other subgroups of Catholicism. Thus, the issue of certain customs and traditions particular to Insular Christianity became, to an extent, a matter of dispute, especially the matter of the proper calculation of Easter.

Saint Augustin came to Iona, under mandate of Rome, to: change the large discrepancies between Celtic and Roman church. He failed. It wasn't until the Synod of Whitby, in AD 663.

The Celtic Church, for example, the old communities of St. Ita and St. Fillan (http://www.csif.org.nz/celtic/differences.html), never discriminated against women (contrary to the teachings of St. Peter) in any way, including ordination as priestess.

I'm referring to the Celtic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity), which developed parallel to the Romanization of the Church in the 6th. and 7th. centuries.


Oops, I missed that part. Carry on, then :D

I understand that female priests weren't exactly popular in the UK either, when the Church of England ordained the first women.
Now, most people just got used to it...

The Church of England is a lot more liberal though, even at the top echelons. I understand the Archbishop of Canterbury's official title is "First among equals" for example. Catholicism is a whole other kettle of fish

Those that study the bible technically yes. Churches with female priests are pragmatic and come from the widespread public support of female priests in those communities, whereas Catholics in general do not actually support women priests, i think that's an argument lost on a lot of people here, that there are a lot of Catholcis, probably in the majority who would support the pope's position. I fall into the minority there because i do believe in women priests but from my own personal experience, even female catholics in general do not support women priests, which i think is a shame because it galvanizes the pope's position on this point.

As early as 1992, 2/3rds of American Catholics favored allowing female priests (Gallup poll).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5D6123AF93AA25755C0A964958260

This was confirmed in a 2005 poll, in which it was found that the majority of Catholics supported both allowing priests to marry and ordaining women as priests.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_24_41/ai_n15333363

The Church of England is a lot more liberal though, even at the top echelons. I understand the Archbishop of Canterbury's official title is "First among equals" for example. Catholicism is a whole other kettle of fish

Sad, but true.
Plus, the Church of England might have found it hard to maintain a stance against female priests, with the head of the church being a woman...

The latest explanation I got from a catholic priest a few years back was that the church is gaining members in South America, Asia and Africa. And those cultures couldn't possibly be confronted with female priests, as females were second rate human beings in their understanding. So the church won't ordain women....


Load of bollocks, if you ask me. But then again, it's been a very long time since I last heard something from the catholic church that wasn't, really.

Indeed it's a load of bollocks. Women, prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church, held great positions in the religions of old, like the Greeks, as an example.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church inherited the same prejudices of the Abrahmaic religion.

Here's something else I found interesting:

"There is a new face of Catholic ministry in the United States, and it is female. With the crushing shortage of Catholic priests worldwide, maintaining the commitment of Catholic women to ministry is one of the most important challenges facing the new pope.

More than 80 percent of the nearly 30,000 Catholics in lay paid parish ministry in the United States are female. They pastor priestless parishes. They serve as directors of religious education and family ministers. Seventy percent of the members of the National Association of Catholic Chaplains are women, too; they work in hospitals, hospices, universities and prisons."

(Bold mine)
http://www.goodcatholicgirls.com/work6.htm

Here's something else I found interesting:

"There is a new face of Catholic ministry in the United States, and it is female. With the crushing shortage of Catholic priests worldwide, maintaining the commitment of Catholic women to ministry is one of the most important challenges facing the new pope.

More than 80 percent of the nearly 30,000 Catholics in lay paid parish ministry in the United States are female. They pastor priestless parishes. They serve as directors of religious education and family ministers. Seventy percent of the members of the National Association of Catholic Chaplains are women, too; they work in hospitals, hospices, universities and prisons."

(Bold mine)
http://www.goodcatholicgirls.com/work6.htm

This remainds me of the Rastafarian Church (http://www.thirdfield.com/new/religion.html).:)

As early as 1992, 2/3rds of American Catholics favored allowing female priests (Gallup poll).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5D6123AF93AA25755C0A964958260

This was confirmed in a 2005 poll, in which it was found that the majority of Catholics supported both allowing priests to marry and ordaining women as priests.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_24_41/ai_n15333363

My own findings on that subject are from my own experiences as an Irish Catholic, but if you can find a poll on Catholic views on the issue from Ireland i'll readily accept your point. You must remember though that most practicing Catholics now are in Central and South America which are a lot more conservative when it comes to these things, however some of that conservativism might be eroding with the fight against Evangelist convertors.

And I entirely disagree with your first point.
I beg to differ.

Reading and interpreting bible can be used to support anything from genocide and alien visitations to evolution and young earth creationism.

What the message of the bible is depends ENTIRELY on its reader and the community in which the reading is practiced.
It depends upon the WRITER and HIS/HER CULTURE and to WHO HE/SHE was WRITING TO and WHY.
And the interpretation of that is left solely to the reader or to the authority the reader - church leaders, kings, dictators, pope, cultists - wishes to follow.

The vatican excommunicating female priests would seem quite an acceptable approach to take, considering any priest that attempts to perform duties will accept the authority of Rome as their defining structure.

Women in leadership, must not be examined from a secular point of view in regard to the church, instead it must be examined with a biblical worldview which is far more apt in understanding and directing church leadership methods.

The vatican in my opinion is quite right to reject women in leadership as an authority, but must not limit women to using their God given gifts for the betterment of the church.

It is clear that women are not to be the final authority in a local church setting, demonstrated by the continuation of the patriarch system through the old and new testaments, Pauls rebuke in Timothy 3, and the vast examples of male leadership, with women merely being a dotted breakout occurrence.

1 Peter clearly points out as does Genesis chapter 2 that all men and women are equal in the eyes of God, however the bible goes on to explain that while we are equal function may not necessarily be the same.

This is the clear founding of the Christian family structure, and since the church can more aptly be described as a family of families from the greek we must instead from a Christian perspective relate how 1 Peter and the family structure would be effected if the same system was rejected in other parts of the Christian walk.

I would dare to say, that many women wanting leadership in my experience has not been out of the desire to serve, but has been far more out of the desire to gain position, which is utterly contrary to the methodology of Christian leadership and discipleship.

A true leader within the church can be categorised as a servant of servants.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address other fallacies within the opening posters post. The Catholic church is in fact growing globally, most notably within Asia, America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and in part Africa. Decline is only within the small nook and cranny of Western Civilisation, which even here has tapered off and is beginning to see a resurgence.

Your outdated figures and common stereotypical viewpoint requires adjusting.

Secondly Jesus Christ cared little for the cultural normative for his day and age, and instead, if he desired to change something, he would have certainly done it.

Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. God was not, and is not bound by human culture. If he saw it as injustice (Example temple bartering) then he certainly would have challenged it in his teachings.


You know I used to respect you, but that is blatant sexism and simply ludicris. Please tell me first of all how a woman's desire to be a priest is simply a "Ploy to gain position" rather than a desire to further the cause of Christ? You've definately struck me not as religious but rather opposing women's right to be entirely equal to men.

Of course, this is coming from a very religious man who still maintains that the Bible in many regards (such as its pro-male slant) is bollocks.

My own findings on that subject are from my own experiences as an Irish Catholic, but if you can find a poll on Catholic views on the issue from Ireland i'll readily accept your point.

Given that YOU are the one who made the claim, don't you think YOU ought to be the one to back it up?

You could start by visiting BASIC, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, which is an Irish-based organization of people "who feel called to play an active part in building up a Church Community which is freed from the sin of sexism and healed from the divisions between men and women."

BASIC was founded in 1993.


You must remember though that most practicing Catholics now are in Central and South America which are a lot more conservative when it comes to these things, however some of that conservativism might be eroding with the fight against Evangelist convertors.
I honestly think this whole line of discussion is pretty lame. You seem to think it's a matter of popularity, and that if/when enough Catholics are prepared to accept women as priests then it will be okay to ordain them. Tell me, do you feel the same way about black priests? If the majority of Catholics didn't want a black priest, would you feel that the Church would be right to refuse to ordain black men?

Something else to chew on:

The Vatican has declared that any women who attempt ordination, and any bishops who attempt to ordain women, are automatically excommunicated from the Church. Like, there doesn't even have to be a formal proceeding or anything, they are instantly excommunicated by their own actions.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has excommunicated precisely zero of the over 4000 priests who have been caught raping children in the US alone. Instead, documents dating back DECADES revealed that the Vatican threatened to excommunicate those who spoke out about the sex abuse that the Vatican knew was occurring.

So now the next question is, precisely what service and honor does a male rapist provide for the Church which a female priest could not provide?

Something else to chew on:

The Vatican has declared that any women who attempt ordination, and any bishops who attempt to ordain women, are automatically excommunicated from the Church. Like, there doesn't even have to be a formal proceeding or anything, they are instantly excommunicated by their own actions.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has excommunicated precisely zero of the over 4000 priests who have been caught raping children in the US alone. Instead, documents dating back DECADES revealed that the Vatican threatened to excommunicate those who spoke out about the sex abuse that the Vatican knew was occurring.

So now the next question is, precisely what service and honor does a male rapist provide for the Church which a female priest could not provide?

Unless the woman dons a strap-on, she's not going to be able to fuck young boys in the ass?

Something else to chew on:

The Vatican has declared that any women who attempt ordination, and any bishops who attempt to ordain women, are automatically excommunicated from the Church. Like, there doesn't even have to be a formal proceeding or anything, they are instantly excommunicated by their own actions.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has excommunicated precisely zero of the over 4000 priests who have been caught raping children in the US alone. Instead, documents dating back DECADES revealed that the Vatican threatened to excommunicate those who spoke out about the sex abuse that the Vatican knew was occurring.

So now the next question is, precisely what service and honor does a male rapist provide for the Church which a female priest could not provide?

I have an answer to that.

Excommunication is what happens to people who openly defy the Church in such a way that excommunication is the only reaction. If a priest molests a child and then repents of his sin, then excommunication is not appropriate because Christianity is about forgiveness. If someone was threatened with excommunication for speaking out, then it's an act of rebellion, not one of contrition.

If a Bishop ordains a female priest in defiance of Church policy, that too is an act of rebellion in a sense, and not indicative of a humble mindset.

What you need to understand is that excommunication is NOT a simple punishment you throw at somebody for a big sin. Excommunication is for those who have directly indicated a lack of obedience to Church policy and does NOT repent of it.

Take me for example. I am excommunicated from the Catholic Church because I joined the Mormon Church. It's not a punishment as such, but perfectly logical as my actions constituted rebellion against the Catholic Church.

As a side note: Even excommunication is not permanent necessarily. If I wanted to, I could return to Catholicism and eventually be re-admitted.

I have an answer to that.

Excommunication is what happens to people who openly defy the Church in such a way that excommunication is the only reaction. If a priest molests a child and then repents of his sin, then excommunication is not appropriate because Christianity is about forgiveness. If someone was threatened with excommunication for speaking out, then it's an act of rebellion, not one of contrition.

If a Bishop ordains a female priest in defiance of Church policy, that too is an act of rebellion in a sense, and not indicative of a humble mindset.

What you need to understand is that excommunication is NOT a simple punishment you throw at somebody for a big sin. Excommunication is for those who have directly indicated a lack of obedience to Church policy and does NOT repent of it.

That's my point. Raping little children for years, while consistently repenting and then raping them again, does not earn somebody excommunication from the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, being ordained while female ONE TIME results in INSTANTANEOUS excommunication.

I completely agree with you: raping children is not considered a violation of Church policy, and the Vatican's excommunication policies reflect this.


Take me for example. I am excommunicated from the Catholic Church because I joined the Mormon Church. It's not a punishment as such, but perfectly logical as my actions constituted rebellion against the Catholic Church.

To be sure, I consider the Catholic Church to be one of the most deplorable organizations in the world, so being expelled from their ranks is an honor in my eyes. One of the reasons for this is their continued energetic support of rape, though it's certainly not the only reason.

Unless the woman dons a strap-on, she's not going to be able to fuck young boys in the ass?

For the love of God, Hotwife!! Can't you, for once, bring something useful to a discussion!!??

This just reflects that the Catholic Church is still a ver mysogin organization. I just love when they get all medieval like this... it just provides me with more ammunition.

I going to tease of my female catholic friends with this. Like I usually do asking them whyin their religion women can not office a mass.


KILL ALL THE TIT-BOUNCING FEMALE PRIESTS SODOMITES!!!!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

That's my point. Raping little children for years, while consistently repenting and then raping them again, does not earn somebody excommunication from the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, being ordained while female ONE TIME results in INSTANTANEOUS excommunication.

I completely agree with you: raping children is not considered a violation of Church policy, and the Vatican's excommunication policies reflect this.


To be sure, I consider the Catholic Church to be one of the most deplorable organizations in the world, so being expelled from their ranks is an honor in my eyes. One of the reasons for this is their continued energetic support of rape, though it's certainly not the only reason.

No. You missed something... Repentance. People can make terrible and grievous mistakes. They do all the time. Repentance is what allows us to rise up form our mistakes and make things right.

If some priest molests a kid, he's not doing so as an act of rebellion against the Church. He's doing it out of mental illness. As long as he's prepared to do what he must to get treatment and not do it again, there's no reason to excommunicate him.

In cases where it happened repeatedly, then I agree stronger measures should have been taken, but the Church has admitted this so there's no point in beating that dead horse.

But at the end of the day such sins are committed as a result of weakness or mental illness, not defiance of Church authority. That's the difference.

In fact, excommunicating someone for molesting a child who is sincerely trying to correct his behavior would be counterproductive. People who are in treatment for such crimes are most successful when they have stability in their life, a job to do, and friends/family to support them. Excommunication would be the WORST thing for them because it would raise the likelihood of a lapse.

For the love of God, Hotwife!! Can't you, for once, bring something useful to a discussion!!??

Salacious cynicism...

Salacious cynicism...

Let me explain something to you, Einstein. In about half your posts you bring inane drivel like this into the thread, and then act like you can't understand why nobody gives you much credence in the other half of your posts.

If you think you've got something positive to contribute, then quit shitting all over it with this garbage. If you've got nothing intelligent to add, then click elsewhere.

Let me explain something to you, Einstein. In about half your posts you bring inane drivel like this into the thread, and then act like you can't understand why nobody gives you much credence in the other half of your posts.

If you think you've got something positive to contribute, then quit shitting all over it with this garbage. If you've got nothing intelligent to add, then click elsewhere.

This is NS General, not some highbrow forum. You'll see more highbrow conversation on just about any other forum...

I have an answer to that.

Excommunication is what happens to people who openly defy the Church in such a way that excommunication is the only reaction. If a priest molests a child and then repents of his sin, then excommunication is not appropriate because Christianity is about forgiveness. If someone was threatened with excommunication for speaking out, then it's an act of rebellion, not one of contrition.

Which is one of must fucked up edicts of the Cathol;ic Church. Molest, rape and sodomize a child, it's all good. Repent and ye shall be saved. Give. Me. A. Break.

If a Bishop ordains a female priest in defiance of Church policy, that too is an act of rebellion in a sense, and not indicative of a humble mindset.

Ah, but it's humbling to molest and sodomize little altar boys. The repentance, yeah...:rolleyes:

What you need to understand is that excommunication is NOT a simple punishment you throw at somebody for a big sin. Excommunication is for those who have directly indicated a lack of obedience to Church policy and does NOT repent of it.

I think raping little kids should fall into the categroy of Big Sin, don't you think? That's a sin, regardless of repentance.

Take me for example. I am excommunicated from the Catholic Church because I joined the Mormon Church. It's not a punishment as such, but perfectly logical as my actions constituted rebellion against the Catholic Church.

As a side note: Even excommunication is not permanent necessarily. If I wanted to, I could return to Catholicism and eventually be re-admitted.

You still worship God. It's absurd you're excommunicated from the Catholic Church for the "crime" of worshiping God as you see fit.

This is NS General, not some highbrow forum. You'll see more highbrow conversation on just about any other forum...

This is a highbrow conversation, wether you like it or not. You lack what it takes to be in it.

This is NS General, not some highbrow forum. You'll see more highbrow conversation on just about any other forum...
Evidently you've never seen the GameFAQs boards. Or AboveTopSecret, which is top-quality comedy time after time after time.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread358870/pg1

Just a small sample of the excellence on there :p

I honestly think this whole line of discussion is pretty lame. You seem to think it's a matter of popularity, and that if/when enough Catholics are prepared to accept women as priests then it will be okay to ordain them. Tell me, do you feel the same way about black priests? If the majority of Catholics didn't want a black priest, would you feel that the Church would be right to refuse to ordain black men?

No it's a matter of religious dogma which the church adheres to and the church will stand by this dogma unless breaking away from it is really in its interests. As for the race issue no of course that would be totally unnacceptable to refuse to ordain black priests.There is nothing in the bible about that and there is no problem with this. You're randomly accusing me of being a racist because i'm trying to understand the church's position on a gender issue? A position which i don't even agree with but i'm trying to be objective rather than rejecting all others opinions on the issue. Are you even a Catholic yourself?

This is a highbrow conversation, wether you like it or not. You lack what it takes to be in it.

O, I think not.

O, I think not.

Bring something useful to the discussion, then. Otherwise, keep out.

This is NS General, not some highbrow forum. You'll see more highbrow conversation on just about any other forum...

Is that supposed to be your excuse?

Which is one of must fucked up edicts of the Cathol;ic Church. Molest, rape and sodomize a child, it's all good. Repent and ye shall be saved. Give. Me. A. Break.

So, you believe that a person who makes a terrible mistake should never be able to recover from it?


Ah, but it's humbling to molest and sodomize little altar boys. The repentance, yeah...:rolleyes:

Why are you distorting my meaning?


I think raping little kids should fall into the categroy of Big Sin, don't you think? That's a sin, regardless of repentance.


That's my point. it IS a big sin, but that's not the point of excommunication.


You still worship God. It's absurd you're excommunicated from the Catholic Church for the "crime" of worshiping God as you see fit.

I don't think it's absurd at all. I have formally and openly rejected the authority and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Why shouldn't I be excommunicated for that?

No it's a matter of religious dogma which the church adheres to and the church will stand by this dogma unless breaking away from it is really in its interests. As for the race issue no of course that would be totally unnacceptable to refuse to ordain black priests.There is nothing in the bible about that and there is no problem with this. You're randomly accusing me of being a racist because i'm trying to understand the church's position on a gender issue? A position which i don't even agree with but i'm trying to be objective rather than rejecting all others opinions on the issue. Are you even a Catholic yourself?

I seem to remember that they did refuse them, with the argument that black skin was "The Mark of Cain"...

Bring something useful to the discussion, then. Otherwise, keep out.

Don't feed the troll. It never helps.

Don't feed the troll. It never helps.

I refer you to the part last week where the moderator said I wasn't trolling.

I refer you to the part last week where the moderator said I wasn't trolling.

So on one isolated occasion you can furnish proof that you didn't happen to troll and now you think you've got a pass?

Guess what? In this thread, you're a damn troll. In most threads I see you in, you're a damn troll.

Maybe in the example you cited, people would have been less likely to perceive you as a troll if you hadn't already earned the reputation for yourself.

I refer you to the part last week where the moderator said I wasn't trolling.

Please don't try to play the jester, you're not good at it. What you say has to be both humorous and relevant. So far as I can see you've accomplished neither.

Female priests are an oxymoron.

A priest is the figure-head of Christ on earth. Since Christ was a male only males can be priests. This was proclaimed infallibly by a past Pope, I forget who off the top of my head, and can not be changed by any successor.


Married priests are also an oxymoron.

Since the Church is the Bride of Christ the priest is married to the Church. His family is the congregation. That is why we in the Catholic Church call priests Father. Just as polygamy in the Church is wrong, a priest can not be married to both the Church and a woman.


Concerning pedophilia

As a Catholic I will admit that there was corruption with in the Church. That is a no brainer. The problem was how pedophiles became priests. The corruption was at the seminaries of the Church. There are many accounts, I have a few personal friends who went through this, where in the seminaries good wholesome men were kicked out because they would not join in the lusting after little boys. Some seminaries became “hot spots” where pedophiles could go to get easy access to little boys. Just as there have been Boy Scout troop leaders, sports coaches, gymnasts teachers, school teachers, and other professions where pedophiles have easy access to children, so has been the priesthood. Marriage will not fix the priest pedophile problem; as long as pedophiles have easy access to little children they will continue to do what they need to gain access to children.

So on one isolated occasion you can furnish proof that you didn't happen to troll and now you think you've got a pass?

Guess what? In this thread, you're a damn troll. In most threads I see you in, you're a damn troll.

Maybe in the example you cited, people would have been less likely to perceive you as a troll if you hadn't already earned the reputation for yourself.

Calling me a troll doesn't make me one. If you happen not to have a cynical sense of humor, you miss out on the first post I made in this thread.

I've noticed that Nanatsu's only method of argument (and indeed most posters on NS General, with certain definite exceptions) is to shout "troll!".

Even with linked evidence and cogent posting.

Calling me a troll doesn't make me one. If you happen not to have a cynical sense of humor, you miss out on the first post I made in this thread.

I've noticed that Nanatsu's only method of argument (and indeed most posters on NS General, with certain definite exceptions) is to shout "troll!".

Even with linked evidence and cogent posting.

Has it ever occurred to you that failure to get your point across might, just might, not be the rest of the world's fault?

And as I said, be as cogent as you want but if people already see you as a troll then you're not going to be taken seriously. if you find that fact hard to accept and deal with then I'm sorry but stop playing the wounded party after interjecting the sort of moronic nonsense you came into this thread with this morning.

So, you believe that a person who makes a terrible mistake should never be able to recover from it?

As terrible as that, the raping of a child? No, these men diserve no pity. Priests who do this should be excommunicated without a chance of attonment.

Why are you distorting my meaning?

I am most surley not distorting your meaning. I am applaying it to the case of molesting children.

That's my point. it IS a big sin, but that's not the point of excommunication.

Mate, it IS the same thing: ordained women as priests or priests molesting children. In my book, it's not a sin to listen to mass while a woman stands in the altar. But it is a sin, a horrible one, to find out that a male priest (because this argument, unfortunately boils down to gender issues) has raped countless kids. The sin of the woman priest is just that she's a woman, and frankly, that is silly. The sin of the priest amounts to much more.


I don't think it's absurd at all. I have formally and openly rejected the authority and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Why shouldn't I be excommunicated for that?

You're also worshiping God. As far as I know, the god of the Mormons is the same God of the Catholics. So yes, Neo B, it is absurd that you get excommunicated on that little detail.

NOTE: I just want you to know that I am, under no circumstance, posting my views as an attack to you. There's no reason to attack. And you're a great debater, I'm sure you're aware of this.;)

In making any comments about church doctrine you must challenge the church from a biblical basis and not one of common culture.

Why?

Calling me a troll doesn't make me one. If you happen not to have a cynical sense of humor, you miss out on the first post I made in this thread.

I've noticed that Nanatsu's only method of argument (and indeed most posters on NS General, with certain definite exceptions) is to shout "troll!".

Even with linked evidence and cogent posting.

Oh, by the way, thanks for hijacking the thread with this trivial spat. Can the three of you get back on track?

I've noticed that Nanatsu's only method of argument (and indeed most posters on NS General, with certain definite exceptions) is to shout "troll!".

I call trolls when I see them. And you are a troll. Your only method of posting is inane stupidity. Your posts throughout this thread support this. Now, either bring something of meaning to the debate or shut up.

Now, I'm back to the topic.

As terrible as that, the raping of a child? No, these men diserve no pity. Priests who do this should be excommunicated without a chance of attonment.

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is why the forgiveness of Christianity transcends human limitations. It's the belief that no matter how horrible something you've done is, it's possible to make amends and better yourself.

Otherwise, why should anyone who has ever made such a terrible mistake bother to get better?


I am most surley not distorting your meaning. I am applying it to the case of molesting children.


You may not be doing it on purpose, but that was a distortion. I'm talking about the humility that says 'I acknowledge the greater authority and wisdom of the Church and God. I am not wiser or better than they are.'

That's got nothing to do with the sort of humiliation you compared it to. Humility is a good thing. Humiliation is not.


Mate, it IS the same thing: ordained women as priests or priests molesting children. In my book, it's not a sin to listen to mass while a woman stands in the altar. But it is a sin, a horrible one, to find out that a male priest (because this argument, unfortunately boils down to gender issues) has raped countless kids. The sin of the woman priest is just that she's a woman, and frankly, that is silly. The sin of the priest amounts to much more.


But again, excommunication has nothing to do with the magnitude of the sin, but rather, the nature of it. I left the Catholic Church. Is that a greater sin than child molestation? Certainly not, but excommunicating me is entirely appropriate since my actions indicated an open and direct rebellion against Catholic Church authority.


You're also worshiping God. As far as I know, the god of the Mormons is the same God of the Catholics. So yes, Neo B, it is absurd that you get excommunicated on that little detail.


What's the alternative? That I sent notice to the Catholic Church that I was no longer interested in being sent mail and that I was, from now on, a Mormon but they say 'No! You are still Catholic! We won't let you go!'


NOTE: I just want you to know that I am, under no circumstance, posting my views as an attack to you. There's no reason to attack. And you're a great debater, I'm sure you're aware of this.;)

I know, and I thank you. I hope you see it likewise from me. :)

Oh, by the way, thanks for hijacking the thread with this trivial spat. Can the three of you get back on track?

Roger that!

I would dare to say, that many women wanting leadership in my experience has not been out of the desire to serve, but has been far more out of the desire to gain position


As opposed to men who seek leadership, who always do it out of a desire to serve, and are never power hungry or just seeking to gain positions of authority for their own ends.


I dare say this is an idiotic statement.

As terrible as that, the raping of a child? No, these men diserve no pity. Priests who do this should be excommunicated without a chance of attonment.


Mate, it IS the same thing: ordained women as priests or priests molesting children. In my book, it's not a sin to listen to mass while a woman stands in the altar. But it is a sin, a horrible one, to find out that a male priest (because this argument, unfortunately boils down to gender issues) has raped countless kids. The sin of the woman priest is just that she's a woman, and frankly, that is silly. The sin of the priest amounts to much more.


As I do believe that pedophiles should deserve the harshest punishment, I don't think a pedophile should be excommunicated.

With saying that, a pedophile priest should be removed from his priestly duties so he no longer has access to children. Then there should be some kind of trial/hearing on his behavior and then some determination as to whether or not he should be removed completely from the priesthood. The problem with pedophile priests was that the Church made it easy for pedophiles to exist within the priesthood. This was due to the Christian philosophy of forgiveness, but there is nothing stating that a pedophile priest should continue being priests.

Concerning woman priests, the reason they are excommunicated is that the woman priest and their ordainor (not a word I know) are going against Church teaching in order to defy the Church. Please see my previous post as to why woman can not be priests.

For the love of God, Hotwife!! Can't you, for once, bring something useful to a discussion!!??

It's a valid point, and true too!

Let me explain something to you, Einstein. In about half your posts you bring inane drivel like this into the thread, and then act like you can't understand why nobody gives you much credence in the other half of your posts.

If you think you've got something positive to contribute, then quit shitting all over it with this garbage. If you've got nothing intelligent to add, then click elsewhere.

Or do what you like in a public forum as long as it is not against the rules?:D

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is why the forgiveness of Christianity transcends human limitations. It's the belief that no matter how horrible something you've done is, it's possible to make amends and better yourself.

Otherwise, why should anyone who has ever made such a terrible mistake bother to get better?.

Yes, it is sad that I feel that way, but it's the same way many people feel. Once again, men who molest/rape children can make amends, but just because a woman feels the calling and is ordained priest, she's excommunicated (granted, they may have the chance of returning to the Church). It is sad to see this distribution.

You may not be doing it on purpose, but that was a distortion. I'm talking about the humility that says 'I acknowledge the greater authority and wisdom of the Church and God. I am not wiser or better than they are.'

Neo B, the only reason these priests confess to molesting children is because they've been caught. Otherwise, they would never say anything. It's not humility what drives them to confess, it's the discovery by the authorities.

Para mi, eso es pura soberbia. Y la soberbia es castigada por Dios.

That's got nothing to do with the sort of humiliation you compared it to. Humility is a good thing. Humiliation is not.

You can count with your fingers, and you'll have some left, the priests that are humble.

Want me to give you an account of the lack of humility priests are capable of? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull).

But again, excommunication has nothing to do with the magnitude of the sin, but rather, the nature of it. I left the Catholic Church. Is that a greater sin than child molestation? Certainly not, but excommunicating me is entirely appropriate since my actions indicated an open and direct rebellion against Catholic Church authority.

Abusing little kids is also an open and direct act of rebellion, not against the Church (which doesn't count), but against God Himself. You're adhering to the rules of men, not divine ones. This is the very reason why I despise the institution.

What's the alternative? That I sent notice to the Catholic Church that I was no longer interested in being sent mail and that I was, from now on, a Mormon but they say 'No! You are still Catholic! We won't let you go!'

You're better than that last statement, and you know it.

I know, and I thank you. I hope you see it likewise form me. :)

Of course, mate.:)

Why?

Always a good question. The reason they want to divorce the Church from the common culture is because they don't want to acknowledge just how much the Church owes to the common culture. It's been demonstrated over millenia that the original intent of any religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.) has always, invariably, been suborned by the culture in which it is placed. Culture trumps religion - always has been so, is so now, and always will be, world without end.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all religions started by visionary people who saw something better. But the culture into which these religions were born distorted the message and turned the religions into hideous hybrids.

Or do what you like in a public forum as long as it is not against the rules?:D

Nah it's a question of time management. If he keeps trolling he wastes his time and would be better served clicking on a thread where he could actually say something relevant.

Female priests are an oxymoron.

A priest is the figure-head of Christ on earth. Since Christ was a male only males can be priests. This was proclaimed infallibly by a past Pope, I forget who off the top of my head, and can not be changed by any successor..


Yet Christ was also God in flesh, genderless, immortal God who made humankind both male and female in God's image.

Yes, it is sad that I feel that way, but it's the same way many people feel. Once again, men who molest/rape children can make amends, but just because a woman feels the calling and is ordained priest, she's excommunicated (granted, they may have the chance of returning to the Church). It is sad to see this distribution.


More on that below.


Neo B, the only reason these priests confess to molesting children is because they've been caught. Otherwise, they would never say anything. It's not humility what drives them to confess, it's the discovery by the authorities.

Para mi, eso es pura soberbia. Y la soberbia es castigada por Dios.


Well that may be, but once they confess it's not the place of any human to judge their heart. if they only confess to avoid stronger punishment then God knows what' sin their heart and will deal with them according to His wisdom. All the Church can do is make any efforts it can to facilitate the process of repentance.


You can count with your fingers, and you'll have some left, the priests that are humble.

Want me to give you an account of the lack of humility priests are capable of? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull).


Well then I'm honored to have known some of them.

Even though I'm not Catholic, I'll never speak ill of the priesthood. In my whole life I have known 2 people who have been outstanding true examples of Christianity when it really counts. One was a Mormon Stake President, one was a Catholic Priest.


Abusing little kids is also an open and direct act of rebellion, not against the Church (which doesn't count), but against God Himself. You're adhering to the rules of men, not divine ones. This is the very reason why I despise the institution.

I disagree. Molesting a child is an act of mental illness. It's an act of personal weakness. It's not malice and it's not rebellion.


You're better than that last statement, and you know it.


I'm being serious. if I indicate that I no longer acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church, what else can they do? They can't force me to stay, so why shouldn't they excommunicate me?


Of course, mate.:)

If only it could be that friendly with everybody, eh?

Always a good question. The reason they want to divorce the Church from the common culture is because they don't want to acknowledge just how much the Church owes to the common culture. It's been demonstrated over millenia that the original intent of any religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.) has always, invariably, been suborned by the culture in which it is placed. Culture trumps religion - always has been so, is so now, and always will be, world without end.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all religions started by visionary people who saw something better. But the culture into which these religions were born distorted the message and turned the religions into hideous hybrids.

Yes indeed, much religoin is so deeply imersd in it's respective culture that it has become less a path to God and more a path to hilarity.

Actualy Unified Sith's comments help to show why I posted my 'nail in the coffin' post.

The Catholic Church can't really change on this, or it risks invalidating portions of it's scripture, and overuling centuries of dogma.

That is why it will ultimatly fall and crumble, it needs to modernise, yet by it's own rules it cannot, it is doomed.

When I asked why, I meant why must we look at the Catholic Church only by it's scriputre, that seems 100% ludicrus to me.

Gods, I havent had respect for the Catholic Church since I was a wee lad (having an embittered ex-Catholic for a father will do that. But his embittermet is a story for another time unless anyone is really curious...) and as such, this doesnt shock me even a little. I had tremendous respect for John Paul and was hoping that maybe, just maybe they were begining to change and get their act together.


Gah. At his rate the only Christian Church worth respecting is the mormons. At least they have the decency to change their doctrines when they become outdate, irrelevent, and potentially racist/mysognistic.

Nah it's a question of time management. If he keeps trolling he wastes his time and would be better served clicking on a thread where he could actually say something relevant.

We are all free here you know, free to post, and free to ignore, I just don't see the point in harranging somebody because you don't like what they post.

Time management wise, it makes more sense to ignore the posts you feel are a waste of your time, does it not?

More on that below.

Roger.

Well that may be, but once they confess it's not the place of any human to judge their heart. if they only confess to avoid stronger punishment then God knows what' sin their heart and will deal with them according to His wisdom. All the Church can do is make any efforts it can to facilitate the process of repentance.

The Church is an institution filled with men. Isn't an excommunication carried out by the hand of a man or a council of men?

Well then I'm honored to have known some of them.

You are lucky, in that respect, then.

Even though I'm not Catholic, I'll never speak ill of the priesthood. In my whole life I have known 2 people who have been outstanding true examples of Christianity when it really counts. One was a Mormon Stake President, one was a Catholic Priest.

My experience with priests, 12 years of Catholic school, has been awful, save for one priest when I was a senior. 1 amongst many.

I disagree. Molesting a child is an act of mental illness. It's an act of personal weakness. It's not malice and it's not rebellion.

I never refer to it as a mental illness. It is a weakness of the flesh, punishable be it a lay man or a priest. It's malice, and it is rebellion because it goes against all the teaching of God and Jesus.

I'm being serious. if I indicate that I no longer acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church, what else can they do? They can't force me to stay, so why shouldn't they excommunicate me?

They shouldn't excommunicate you because you follow the same God as them.

If only it could be that friendly with everybody, eh?

Yup. You're one of the few.

Yet Christ was also God in flesh, genderless, immortal God who made humankind both male and female in God's image.

Yet, Christ's flesh was in the male gender.

Yet, Christ's flesh was in the male gender.

Which matters why?

If Christ can be both human and God made flesh, then whay cannot Christ be male and female? Unless you are worshiping only Christ's humanity, and not Christ's divinity?

We are all free here you know, free to post, and free to ignore, I just don't see the point in harranging somebody because you don't like what they post.

Time management wise, it makes more sense to ignore the posts you feel are a waste of your time, does it not?

My hope was that investing a few minutes pointing it out may actually help. Time will tell.


The Church is an institution filled with men. Isn't an excommunication carried out by the hand of a man or a council of men?


Well I guess one would argue that since it came from the Pope, that it is from God Himself through his representative.


You are lucky, in that respect, then.
My experience with priests, 12 years of Catholic school, has been awful, save for one priest when I was a senior. 1 amongst many.


I only had 9 years of it ;)


I never refer to it as a mental illness. It is a weakness of the flesh, punishable be it a lay man or a priest. It's malice, and it is rebellion because it goes against all the teaching of God and Jesus.


No, I assure you it's mental illness. I've had some formal education in this area and the causes and triggers for such behavior have nothing whatsoever to do with malice or rebellion. In most cases, in fact, it happens before the molester truly realizes what he's doing.


They shouldn't excommunicate you because you follow the same God as them.


Well that's the thing. Catholic doctrine states that since Mormons do not follow the Trinity model, that we are apostate and thus following a different God.


Yup. You're one of the few.

I feel a fluffle coming on...

Which matters why?

If Christ can be both human and God made flesh, then whay cannot Christ be male and female? Unless you are worshiping only Christ's humanity, and not Christ's divinity?

Which could be the case. Unfortunately, many of us, humans, cannot or are not able to make the distinction. God, as a creative entity, is genderless. The "son", as an extension of the very God, is also genderless.

I guess we humans do not worship God, but the Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge).

My hope was that investing a few minutes pointing it out may actually help. Time will tell.


Hehe yeah, come on everybody hands up who likes to be told what to do?:D

We are all free here you know, free to post, and free to ignore, I just don't see the point in harranging somebody because you don't like what they post.

Time management wise, it makes more sense to ignore the posts you feel are a waste of your time, does it not?

I try to stay on topic until as a method of argument, someone posts "troll".

Then all bets are off on what I post next.

Which could be the case. Unfortunately, many of us, humans, cannot or are not able to make the distinction. God, as a creative entity, is genderless. The "son", as an extension of the very God, is also genderless.

I guess we humans do not worship God, but the Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge).

Ohh thats a bit well y'now Gnostic huh!

Which matters why?

Can a person question why God chose the male gender?

If Christ can be both human and God made flesh, then whay cannot Christ be male and female? Unless you are worshiping only Christ's humanity, and not Christ's divinity?

Christ as the divine form of God is genderless. Christ as flesh was male. This is in no way means that a person is only worshiping the humanity of Christ and not His divinity.

Well I guess one would argue that since it came from the Pope, that it is from God Himself through his representative.

Which is something absurd (not because you're saying it). The Pope is a mere human. I don't see any investment on him that would make him worthy, at all, of carrying God's will on Earth. And besides, who the heck do we think we are to even pretend we know what God wants or deems unacceptable? The Pope is a worthless mortal, same as everyone else.

I only had 9 years of it ;)

Lucky /b/tard.;)

No, I assure you it's mental illness. I've had some formal education in this area and the causes and triggers for such behavior have nothing whatsoever to do with malice or rebellion. In most cases, in fact, it happens before the molester truly realizes what he's doing.

Mental illness or not, it's inexcusable. That's like saying one can exonerate a man that's comitted mass murdering just because he pleads insanity. Trying to say 'I'm ill, I didn't know what I was doing' does not exonerates you. Not knowing the crime doesn't save you.

Well that's the thing. Catholic doctrine states that since Mormons do not follow the Trinity model, that we are apostate and thus following a different God.

And that's something the Catholic Church should revise. If they made countless councils for useless things like images and what not, making a council to revise the doctrine (which is in dire need of revision) shouldn't be too hard.

I feel a fluffle coming on...

No fluffling. I have the fish-slap one, in case you want it used on you.:D

Can a person question why God chose the male gender?

Of course a person can and should question all religous text, dogma, and ritual. Blind faith really is blind.



Christ as the divine form of God is genderless. Christ as flesh was male. This is in no way means that a person is only worshiping the humanity of Christ and not His divinity.

Of course but when you worship Christ it is his divinity you worship not his humanity, yes?

So then 'a priest is a figurehead' of which aspect of Christ, his humanity or his divinity?
Because that was the very reason you gave us for the non ordination of women. So is the Catholic Church representant of Christ the man, or Christ the God?

Ohh thats a bit well y'now Gnostic huh!

Yes, I know. I did it on purpose.;)

What can the Church do? Either it's very foundations are inaccurate and flexible, meaning that the whole institution of the catholic church is rather pointless, or it's foundations are fundamentally true thus not making the Church pointless by its own standards.

doesn't say we are all a royal priesthood in 1 Peter last time i read it i didn't mention that women where exempted

Which could be the case. Unfortunately, many of us, humans, cannot or are not able to make the distinction. God, as a creative entity, is genderless. The "son", as an extension of the very God, is also genderless.
I got an idea! Why don't we have genderless priests too? :D

What can the Church do? Either it's very foundations are inaccurate and flexible, meaning that the whole institution of the catholic church is rather pointless, or it's foundations are fundamentally true thus not making the Church pointless by its own standards.

Rather pointless.

We're talking about a Church, that in the 3rd. century makes a synod to deliberate the divinity of Jesus (http://www.livinghopelc.net/Nicene_Creed_Detail.htm). Jesus, who I might as well add, was considered a mere mortal by the same Catholic Church before this synod (http://eefy.editme.com/CouncilOfNicaea).

Rather pointless.

We're talking about a Church, that in the 3rd. century makes a synod to deliberate the divinity of Jesus (http://www.livinghopelc.net/Nicene_Creed_Detail.htm). Jesus, who I might as well add, was considered a mere mortal by the same Catholic Church before this synod (http://eefy.editme.com/CouncilOfNicaea).

Most people argue that the Catholic church of today is very far detached from the early church, which is why the early church is almost universally called the early church rather than the "early Catholic Church."

I got an idea! Why don't we have genderless priests too? :D

If you know of a way...:p

If you know of a way...:p
Castration?

Castration?

Hmmm... that would make priests into eunuchs, who are, technically, male.:eek:

Most people argue that the Catholic church of today is very far detached from the early church, which is why the early church is almost universally called the early church rather than the "early Catholic Church."

With the archaisms it's presenting lately, perhaps the early Church is far more advanced.

What do you think?

Hmmm... that would make priests into eunuchs, who are, technically, male.:eek:
But then, that would "neuter" them. No more "he" or "she", just "it". ;)

With the archaisms it's presenting lately, perhaps the early Church is far more advanced.

What do you think?

Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The early Church wasn't that great once it started to take the writings of Paul seriously.

If it is true that all of Jesus' apostles were men(arguable that Mary Magdalene was not only an apostle, but his closest apostle but let's forego that for now), therefore only men can be priests, then I think it only fitting that all catholic priests be jews. *nod*

And presumably 11 out of 12 priests should be brutally martyred. :p

I'll bring the crocodile, the stakes and the peanut butter: get your attack weasels and meet me at the Vatican tomorrow at dawn.

Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The early Church wasn't that great once it started to take the writings of Paul seriously.

Then I guess Paul's writings should be revised. Of course, this is wishful thinking on my part because I'm well aware that the Church will not revise them. It's not to their advantage to.

But then, that would "neuter" them. No more "he" or "she", just "it". ;)

When you neuter a male dog, it's still male, isn't it? When you sterilize a female dog, it's still female. Same as a man. We should wipe any reace of a sexual organ and features characteristic of the sexes in order to make someone "genderless". Not even androginy will saves us here.:p

When you neuter a male dog, it's still male, isn't it? When you sterilize a female dog, it's still female. Same as a man. We should wipe any reace of a sexual organ and features characteristic of the sexes in order to make someone "genderless". Not even androginy will saves us here.:p
Hmmm... depends on the definition of "male" or "female", actually. Well in any case, we're actually talking of "sexless" since "gender" is different from "sex". ;)

Hmmm... depends on the definition of "male" or "female", actually. Well in any case, we're actually talking of "sexless" since "gender" is different from "sex". ;)

Right-o.;)

I think women have the same right under heaven to be priests of the Church they profess to follow, same as men.

Then I guess Paul's writings should be revised. Of course, this is wishful thinking on my part because I'm well aware that the Church will not revise them. It's not to their advantage to.


Exactly. Which is goes back to my original point, that its absurd to get infuriated by this since it's silly to expect the Church to revise its foundations.

Exactly. Which is goes back to my original point, that its absurd to get infuriated by this since it's silly to expect the Church to revise its foundations.

It's not much being infuriated as being disappointed in the Ecclesiastical institution. 1,500+ years and they haven't changed one bit.

Funny how the early church never spoke out against female teachers, even Paul. He commended many of them in leadership positions in many of his letters. I wonder what the Vatican is thinking? Oh yes, that is right, they aren't thinking.

WHOA!!!
wait the Vatican has actually thought? like about something? at some point in time????
I dunno . . . .thats pretty out there.

Exactly. Which is goes back to my original point, that its absurd to get infuriated by this since it's silly to expect the Church to revise its foundations.

I'm not infuriated either, I'm kinda laughing hard though.

This is, in fact, wrong. If He was following the 'social norms' of His time, Jesus would not have associated with the lowest people within society.

While I dont always agree with all that the church has taught, I believe that this decision it not really ours to make. The pope has spoken, and as he is God's representative here on earth, there is nothing else to say.

:cool:
1)But he didn't women were the "lowest people within society" at that time

2)and this is why I'm not religious . .. .he's god representative on earth therefore he is always right and everything he says must be taken as holy write

Which is something absurd (not because you're saying it). The Pope is a mere human. I don't see any investment on him that would make him worthy, at all, of carrying God's will on Earth. And besides, who the heck do we think we are to even pretend we know what God wants or deems unacceptable? The Pope is a worthless mortal, same as everyone else.


Well if I were still Catholic my reply would be that the Pope is spoken to directly by God and is just passing along the message.


Lucky /b/tard.;)

:D


Mental illness or not, it's inexcusable. That's like saying one can exonerate a man that's comitted mass murdering just because he pleads insanity. Trying to say 'I'm ill, I didn't know what I was doing' does not exonerates you. Not knowing the crime doesn't save you.


It's not about excusing it. It's about taking the most appropriate measures to remedy the problem. As it's a mental illness, then the most appropriate way to respond would be to treat it as such.

The question is, what's the highest priority? Protecting potential future victims, or getting the emotional satisfaction of hurting the guy who did it? Personally I'd rather put him in treatment to decrease the likelihood of him doing it again. Part of that process is forgiveness.

And that's where the Church DID mess up for a long time. They hid the problem rather than dealing with it head-on in a constructive and useful manner. Things have improved, but the stain will be very difficult to remove.


And that's something the Catholic Church should revise. If they made countless councils for useless things like images and what not, making a council to revise the doctrine (which is in dire need of revision) shouldn't be too hard.


I don't see that happening anytime soon. But I don't worry about it. Being excommunicated from the Catholic Church doesn't mean I've been shunned or that I couldn't walk into a church building, or even attend Mass if I were so inclined. It just means I'm not Catholic anymore and would, from their point of view, eventually go to hell for renouncing the 'true' church.


No fluffling. I have the fish-slap one, in case you want it used on you.:D

What for?

I see how you are...

If you'd read the post you'd have seen it said the Church is "the BRIDE of Christ" so no by that argument becoming a FEMALE priest would be a gay marriage to the Church.

Marying someone elses bride is legit in the catholic church?

I mean if we are going to be litteral, sillily and arbitrarily assing a sex to an organization (which to me is justifying stupidity with stupidity) we might as well be honestly litteral with the rest of the implications.

Well if I were still Catholic my reply would be that the Pope is spoken to directly by God and is just passing along the message.

More like the ghost of Hitler speaks directly to Pope Benny, than God. He IS passing the message...:p

It's not about excusing it. It's about taking the most appropriate measures to remedy the problem. As it's a mental illness, then the most appropriate way to respond would be to treat it as such.

I'm not condemning them for suffering a mental illness. Anyone can suffer from it. It's just that the sole fact that they shield themselves behind it being ill isn't remedying anything. The damage has been done. How do you think God may feel as his 'representatives' among men abuse others?

The question is, what's the highest priority? Protecting potential future victims, or getting the emotional satisfaction of hurting the guy who did it? Personally I'd rather put him in treatment to decrease the likelihood of him doing it again. Part of that process is forgiveness.

Both things can be accomplished. I'm sorry, but I'm vindictive.

And that's where the Church DID mess up for a long time. They hid the problem rather than dealing with it head-on in a constructive and useful manner. Things have improved, but the stain will be very difficult to remove.

Constructive? Not in the least. All the Church does is hide under one and another scheme of lies.

I don't see that happening anytime soon. But I don't worry about it. Being excommunicated from the Catholic Church doesn't mean I've been shunned or that I couldn't walk into a church building, or even attend Mass if I were so inclined. It just means I'm not Catholic anymore and would, from their point of view, eventually go to hell for renouncing the 'true' church.

Which I don't think is true. You going to hell because you're a Mormon. Not in God's eyes, I'm sure.

What for?

I see how you are...

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Pope Benny...
I like that nickname.

More like the ghost of Hitler speaks directly to Pope Benny, than God. He IS passing the message...:p

OMG Nanatsu did you just cite Hitler?


I'm not condemning them for suffering a mental illness. Anyone can suffer from it. It's just that the sole fact that they shield themselves behind it being ill isn't remedying anything. The damage has been done. How do you think God may feel as his 'representatives' among men abuse others?


Both things can be accomplished. I'm sorry, but I'm vindictive.


Well the fact that it's a mental illness shouldn't be a shield at all. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment. All I'm saying is that the first priority must be preventing it from happening again, and if the person who did it can be part of the remedy, then he owes it to his community to do so. Just locking people away and throwing out the key isn't the solution either. It doesn't help us understand what causes it or how to curtail it before it happens with others.


Constructive? Not in the least. All the Church does is hide under one and another scheme of lies.


No, they're getting better. They've had to, with all the scrutiny they get.


Which I don't think is true. You going to hell because you're a Mormon. Not in God's eyes, I'm sure.


It's hard to really be sure how Catholics view Mormons in day to day life. We never talked about it when I was in Catholic School, so I really don't know. My family is still mostly Catholic but I haven't had any major issues with them.


:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Ahh a perfect way to spend a Friday afternoon

OMG Nanatsu did you just cite Hitler?

Yes, I'm the Devil's Advocate.:D

Well the fact that it's a mental illness shouldn't be a shield at all. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment. All I'm saying is that the first priority must be preventing it from happening again, and if the person who did it can be part of the remedy, then he owes it to his community to do so. Just locking people away and throwing out the key isn't the solution either. It doesn't help us understand what causes it or how to curtail it before it happens with others.

My idea is that it shouldn't happen. Perhaps the Church needs to psychologically evaluate those who are candidate to become priests.


No, they're getting better. They've had to, with all the scrutiny they get.

Do you think they're getting better? Do you really think that by excommunicating women because they are ordained as priests they're getting better?

It's hard to really be sure how Catholics view Mormons in day to day life. We never talked about it when I was in Catholic School, so I really don't know. My family is still mostly Catholic but I haven't had any major issues with them.

I was brought up Catholic, and if I ever go back to Church, it would be to a Catholic one and I can assure you that I don't see anything evil or wrong with Mormons. You guys actually live exemplary lives.


Ahh a perfect way to spend a Friday afternoon

Yeah, right? Fluffling is the best.

More like the ghost of Hitler speaks directly to Pope Benny, than God. He IS passing the message...:p

GODWIN'S LAW. /THREAD.

Yes, I'm the Devil's Advocate.:D


hehe


My idea is that it shouldn't happen. Perhaps the Church needs to psychologically evaluate those who are candidate to become priests.


Or better yet: Education. Child sex crimes are preventable through education. The warning signs both internal and external are easy to identify and if acted upon early, perfectly controllable. The trick is knowing what they are and how to handle them.


Do you think they're getting better? Do you really think that by excommunicating women because they are ordained as priests they're getting better?


In terms of how they're handling molestation cases, they ARE getting better. I said nothing about the women priest issue in that one.


I was brought up Catholic, and if I ever go back to Church, it would be to a Catholic one and I can assure you that I don't see anything evil or wrong with Mormons. You guys actually live exemplary lives.


Thanks.


Yeah, right? Fluffling is the best.

makes life worth living ;)

Having read the original post and the (somewhat predictable) replies, I'm left with a profound sense of "yeah, and, so....?"

A - It doesn't actually surprise anybody that the Vatican would say that chicks can't be priests does it? Really? What's next, a wave of surprise that Howard Stern had a naked girl on his radio show?

B - Unless you're a Catholic, or consider yourself bound to obey the Vatican's pronouncements, why do you care? Not being a Muslim, I don't really take every Hajji that flaps his gums seriously, but I don't get my panties in a bunch about their various foolishnesses either. Why? Because, having not subscribed to their doctrine, what they say doesn't apply to me. The world would be a better (or at least quieter and calmer) place if people just ignored what didn't apply to them.

I think this is the point where somebody posts a picture of a cat captioned with 'can i haz a ordinationz, plz?'

I think this is the point where somebody posts a picture of a cat captioned with 'can i haz a ordinationz, plz?'

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~chris/Photos/Lolz/LongCatTacgnol.jpg

I think this is the point where somebody posts a picture of a cat captioned with 'can i haz a ordinationz, plz?'

ok

http://www.lolcatz.net/1799/i-can-has-it-pwease/

Nobody beatz dunecat

http://blaatone.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/dunecat.jpg

he controlz teh spice!!!!

I Do love the way the pope is trying to destroy the catholic church before he has his appointment with St Peter.

Some vision by a saint said there'll only be one more pope.

All together now "Oh Happy Day"

I beg to differ.

Reading and interpreting bible can be used to support anything from genocide and alien visitations to evolution and young earth creationism.

What the message of the bible is depends ENTIRELY on its reader and the community in which the reading is practiced.

And the interpretation of that is left solely to the reader or to the authority the reader - church leaders, kings, dictators, pope, cultists - wishes to follow.

Incorrect.

There is a clear difference to the biblical meaning and the human manipulation of it. There is an authorative line of right and wrong. Blured and unblurred, and while many have manipulated it over time, a sound exegesis of biblical passages will give its true meaning.

You are assuming that everyone comes to scripture with a political agenda.

And once more the interpretation is not left solely to the reader, it is left to the translation of the greek texts, Hebrew texts, and sourcing of historical records to ascertain to the proper background with which a commentation can be made.

You know I used to respect you, but that is blatant sexism and simply ludicris. Please tell me first of all how a woman's desire to be a priest is simply a "Ploy to gain position" rather than a desire to further the cause of Christ? You've definately struck me not as religious but rather opposing women's right to be entirely equal to men.

Of course, this is coming from a very religious man who still maintains that the Bible in many regards (such as its pro-male slant) is bollocks.

That is not what I typed.

I typed that men and women are entirely equal in the eyes of God, however they have different functions.

We see that for a man and a woman to be equal they must have the same function, role and office. This is incorrect.

The bible clearly depicts equality but a difference in function. 1 Peter marriage relationship and Ephesians 6 which elaborates on the topic further.

You may dislike the bible and its opinions, but me myself as an emerging church pastor, I will not diverge from what scripture teaches and so we have an opposing worldview.

If you seek to disagree with me, that's fine. But you must accept the church teaches what the bible teaches. And to disagree with the church, in how the church is governed you must present a biblical not popular basis for it.

That is not what I typed.

I typed that men and women are entirely equal in the eyes of God, however they have different functions.

We see that for a man and a woman to be equal they must have the same function, role and office. This is incorrect.

The bible clearly depicts equality but a difference in function. 1 Peter marriage relationship and Ephesians 6 which elaborates on the topic further.

You may dislike the bible and its opinions, but me myself as an emerging church pastor, I will not diverge from what scripture teaches and so we have an opposing worldview.

If you seek to disagree with me, that's fine. But you must accept the church teaches what the bible teaches. And to disagree with the church, in how the church is governed you must present a biblical not popular basis for it.

You assume that we're all Christians. I'm not. The Church, since it's inception, has been influenced and informed by the culture(s) in which it resides. These cultures, frequently, influence the Church far more than the Church influences them. Witness the differences in all the incarnations of Christianity. As well, witness all the incarnations of Islam and Judaism. Most of their practices have nothing to do with the teachings of their founders and everything to do with the practices of the cultures they inhabit.

The heirarchy of the Catholic Church is not Biblical but rather resembles and was derived from the heirarchy of the government of the Roman Empire. Every Protestant Church has either rebelled against or assimilated this heirarchy.

I won't even go into how the culture Islam lives in has perverted Islam.

There is a clear difference to the biblical meaning and the human manipulation of it.
There is no "Biblical Meaning" outside of what the person who reads the bible assigns to it....be it fantastic fables, distorted stories of alien visitations or the literal interpretation.

There is an authorative line of right and wrong.

The authority who decides the issue is either god or the reader, neither of which can be affected by YOUR opinion.

You are assuming that everyone comes to scripture with a political agenda.
Everyone has a reason to read the bible, it colours their perception of the book.

And once more the interpretation is not left solely to the reader, it is left to the translation of the greek texts, Hebrew texts, and sourcing of historical records to ascertain to the proper background with which a commentation can be made.
Words are meaningless wihtout context and EVERYONE sees the context in different way: Does a specific word mean red or blue is insignificant if most of the context is translated correctly.

Consider Leviticus:
27:3-4 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Literal interpretation would be that male is 67% more valuable than a woman.

Protestant christian might interpret it as Leviticus is old testament so it doesn't apply, except as a reminder how good Jesus was.

Historian might see it as an example of patriatrarchal society where male slaves are more valuable.

God might have a different opinion, as would the pope or the reader.

And the quality translation or historical background? You end up with different values for man and woman unless you have really f'ed up the translation regardless of the historical context.


In the end who is right? Well, except the unfathomable, unguessable, undecipharable, unseeable, untouchable, unsmellable, unhearable GOD herself - Of course!

Why? It's irrational for him not to.

Faith and papal doctrine are inherently irrational, except certain parts of Vatican II.

Yeah, I really don't know what the OP has against Catholicism, but they really need to get over it, no one cares, least of all the Pope.

Unless the woman dons a strap-on, she's not going to be able to fuck young boys in the ass?
For the love of God, Hotwife!! Can't you, for once, bring something useful to a discussion!!??

That was useful. It made me laugh.

In cases where it happened repeatedly, then I agree stronger measures should have been taken, but the Church has admitted this so there's no point in beating that dead horse.

And yet they continue to do nothing, despite admitting they should do more. This implies that they are ok with priests fucking altar boys, and in fact their past actions of when allegations are raised they transfer the priest elsewhere is an indication that they encourage it.

And yet they continue to do nothing, despite admitting they should do more. This implies that they are ok with priests fucking altar boys, and in fact their past actions of when allegations are raised they transfer the priest elsewhere is an indication that they encourage it.

So you're taking the actions of a few bishops from years ago as the church's official stance on the scandals? I somehow doubt that you are privy to internal communications relating to what the church has done about the situation. Seriously, I'm as upset as anyone about what happened, but to believe that nothing has been done, or that the Church actively allows this sort of thing to happen is the height of stupidity.

I got an idea! Why don't we have genderless priests too? :D

Making them all eunuchs does seem appropriate, although it would probably decrease the number of guys wanting to become priests.

For the love of God, Hotwife!! Can't you, for once, bring something useful to a discussion!!??

Hey, at least he didn't start in on Muslims again.

So you're taking the actions of a few bishops from years ago as the church's official stance on the scandals? I somehow doubt that you are privy to internal communications relating to what the church has done about the situation. Seriously, I'm as upset as anyone about what happened, but to believe that nothing has been done, or that the Church actively allows this sort of thing to happen is the height of stupidity.

Then what has been done? If the church has actually taken action against these child molesters, what is it?

Then what has been done? If the church has actually taken action against these child molesters, what is it?

I don't know, and more to the point, you don't either. In the current climate, anyone wanting to come out and say that a priest has done something to them would be able to sometime soon. You haven't heard about any new cases have you? No, you haven't. The Church is secretive by nature, but I do trust that they are doing something to solve the problem, not least of which is to remove the problems from their ranks.

Can a person question why God chose the male gender?

Yes, and I shall do so again. Why?

I don't know, and more to the point, you don't either.
And when I hear nothing about what is being done, mine general inclination is that that is because there is nothing being done.
In the current climate, anyone wanting to come out and say that a priest has done something to them would be able to sometime soon. You haven't heard about any new cases have you?

Albany priest, diocese sued


Matt C. Abbott
Matt C. Abbott
May 30, 2008


The following lawsuit was filed May 23, 2008 against Father Gary Mercure, Bishop Howard Hubbard and the Albany Catholic diocese.

Several years ago, Father Mercure gave pornographic photos of himself to John Watkins, the plaintiff, who alleges that the priest manipulated him into a sexual relationship.

The Albany diocese has a history of dissent and corruption, culminating in the 2004 apparent suicide of whistleblower priest Father John Minkler.


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WARREN


JOHN WATKINS,

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-against- Index No.: 50800

FR. GARY MERCURE, ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE
OF ALBANY and BISHOP HOWARD J. HUBBARD,

Defendants.



The plaintiff JOHN WATKINS, by and through his attorney, JOHN A.

ARETAKIS, does hereby state as and for a complaint against the defendants the following:

1. The plaintiff JOHN WATKINS, (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF") at all relevant times material to the complaint herein, is now over the age of eighteen and is a resident of the State of New York, County of Warren.

2. The defendant GARY MERCURE (hereinafter defendant "MERCURE"), upon information and belief, is a resident of the State of New York, County of Rensselaer and is a priest in the Albany Diocese.

3. The defendant BISHOP HOWARD J. HUBBARD (hereinafter "BISHOP") was and is a Roman Catholic bishop and priest who resides, upon information and belief, in the County of Albany, and defendant FR. MERCURE is under direct supervision, employ and control of defendant DIOCESE and defendant HUBBARD.

INDEX NUMBER PURCHASED:

4. The defendant ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALBANY (hereinafter "DIOCESE") is a religious organization that transacts business and is located throughout the State of New York, but primarily in the State of New York, County of Albany, but also transacts business and has made statements in Warren County.

5. The material facts surrounding these claims and underlying these claims occurred in Warren County.

6. Although defendant MERCURE is on administrative leave, he is and will continue to be paid his full salary, insurance, benefits and perks as an Albany Diocese priest even though he is accused of the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable persons, and will continue to receive all of these benefits and monies even if he is permanently removed from ministry due to pedophilia, sexual abuse and/or exploiting his position and power as a priest.

7. By way of background, the defendant ALBANY DIOCESE has removed twenty-three pedophiles from the active ministry in the last five years, and all removed priests remain on the ALBANY DIOCESE payroll including insurance, pension, salary, fringes and all benefits.

8. In 1994, again in 2000 and thereafter and continuing until the present, defendant BISHOP HOWARD HUBBARD and the ALBANY DIOCESE were advised of and aware that the defendant MERCURE sexually abused children and took advantage of vulnerable persons in a sexual nature.

9. The plaintiff specifically and personally advised the defendant HUBBARD in 1994 that the defendant MERCURE had sexually abused the plaintiff and exploited his position and power as a priest.

10. The defendant DIOCESE and the defendant HUBBARD know and have had notice that FR. MERCURE has had sexual contact with children and vulnerable persons since at least 2000 from another victim of defendant MERCURE.

11. The plaintiff JOHN WATKINS, while suffering from mental illness because he was raped as a young child by his father, and while he went to defendant MERCURE for help in regard to his emotional and mental problems in connection with his abuse, was then sexually abused and exploited by FR. MERCURE when he went to FR. MERCURE for help.

12. From the defendant DIOCESE'S own policies and protocol, FR. MERCURE should immediately and permanently have been removed from ministry due to the exploitation and misuse of the power of his collar by hearing and offering counseling on the unfortunate history of JOHN WATKINS and then abusing and exploiting that history.

13. In the 1990s, FR. MERCURE would take the plaintiff to Queensbury Middle School in defendant MERCURE'S automobile so FR. MERCURE could watch the children leave school at the end of the school day and make comments about his (defendant MERCURE) sexual interest in children. This information was given to defendant HUBBARD in 1994.

14. The defendant MERCURE actually used the plaintiff to assist him in his sexual desires and interest in children in 1994 and this information was told to the defendant HUBBARD in 1994. In 1995, the defendant HUBBARD paid for part of the plaintiff's therapy due to abuse at the hands of FR. MERCURE.

15. Despite these warnings and specifics about defendant MERCURE'S mental illness and sexual interest in children, the defendant HUBBARD has allowed the defendant MERCURE to remain in ministry from 1994 to 2008 allowing children and vulnerable persons to remain at risk.

16. The plaintiff JOHN WATKINS went to the defendant BISHOP HOWARD HUBBARD with the above information in 1994 about being sexually abused and about FR. MERCURE'S sexual interest in children.

17. BISHOP HUBBARD acknowledged that FR. MERCURE sexually abused the plaintiff and that defendant MERCURE was treated for psychiatric illness. In 1995, the defendant HUBBARD paid the plaintiff for psychological treatment from the sexual abuse of the plaintiff by defendant MERCURE, indicating defendant HUBBARD'S awareness of the sexual abuse by defendant MERCURE.

18. Instead of acting properly, the defendant HUBBARD send the defendant MERCURE to St. Mary's Church in Clinton Heights in East Greenbush, New York.

19. Children and vulnerable persons in Warren County and Rensselaer County have been at risk of harm from the abusive tendencies of defendant MERCURE due to defendant HUBBARD'S leaving this dangerous sexual predator in ministry since 1994.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

21. This cause of action is for injunctive relief.

22. The plaintiff has requested and requests that defendant MERCURE be permanently removed from ministry.

23. The defendant HUBBARD has only administratively removed from ministry defendant MERCURE, but he is still a priest, still around children, with access to children and still a danger to children.

24. The plaintiff respectfully requests that defendant MERCURE be stripped of his ability to ever function as a priest and be around children and to not be paid any salary, pension, insurance benefits and perks.

25. The plaintiff has a high degree of likelihood of success as it has and will be established that defendant HUBBARD had notice of his dangerous and sexually inappropriate behavior since 1994 and 2000.

26. Immediately after being placed on notice of defendant MERCURE'S sexual abuse, the defendant HUBBARD moved the defendant MERCURE to St. Mary's Church in Clinton Heights in East Greenbush.

27. The plaintiff has given the defendants credible information that defendant MERCURE has abused children and vulnerable persons, and has engaged in other actions that make the defendant MERCURE a public danger.

28. The equities weigh in favor of the plaintiff.

29. That should this equitable relief not issue, and then the plaintiff and others would have and will suffer irreparable damage.

30. Since the defendants have already removed defendant MERCURE from ministry temporarily, there will be prejudice for this relief.

31. The safety of children, vulnerable persons and the general public are at risk.

32. There is a present public danger and a danger to the community should this relief not issue.

33. The defendant HUBBARD has the authority to permanently remove the defendant MERCURE from ministry, and has yet to do so because of a severe priest shortage and due to the defendant HUBBARD'S history of the protection of predatory priests.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

34. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

35. This cause of action is for libel and slander.

36. When defendant FR. MERCURE was temporarily removed from ministry in January 2008, the defendants put out the attached press release for dissemination and publication to third parties and the media (Exhibit "A").

37. The defendant's statements were actually published to the media, and reported on by the media to the public and to third parties.

38. The statement made pertaining to the plaintiff is false and intentionally false and was known by the defendants to be false when made.

39. The defendants made the intentionally false statement with actual malice and scienter, and the libel and defamation are defamatory per se.

40. The defendant's specific false information proximately harmed the plaintiff and was outrageous and shocking to right minded thinking persons and caused the plaintiff damages.

41 The statement was released with the aid and assistance of the defendant MERCURE and for the defendant MERCURE'S benefit and in an effort to conceal and protect the actions of the defendant HUBBARD in keeping the defendant MERCURE in ministry.

42. The statement was particularly outrageous because it stated specifically that a consensual sexual relationship existed by and between two consenting adults, when in fact it was a situation of an older man in a position of power and leadership over the plaintiff who was sexually abused and exploited as young child who already had been abused, and who was suffering from mental and psychological problems and extreme vulnerability at the time of the abuse by defendant MERCURE.

43. The defendants libeled and slandered the plaintiff so as to continue to protect and shield FR. MERCURE from a well known and documented history of sexual abuse of children and vulnerable persons. The actual libel and slander is contained in the defendants' press release when the defendants announced the temporary removal of defendant FR. GARY MERCURE.

44. The actual press release statement is attached as Exhibit "A" and was done, upon information and belief to put a false proactive public position on this predatory priest and in order to deny actual notice that defendant MERCURE was a sexually abusive priest.

45. Reading and learning that the plaintiff was engaged in a consensual sexual relationship when the truth is that the plaintiff was sexually abused and exploited was painful, harmful and proximately caused damages to the plaintiff.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

46. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

47. This cause of action is against the defendant DIOCESE for libel, slander and publishing to media for widespread dissemination that this plaintiff had a consensual sexual relationship with the defendant MERCURE, and that is and was false and known to be false when made.

48. The exact quote by Diocese spokesman, Kenneth Goldfarb was "it was not a case of sexual abuse, and it did not involve a minor."

49. This statement was false and intentionally false when made in order to create an unequivocal statement of fact that the plaintiff was capable of and engaged in a sexual relationship with the defendant MERCURE.

50. The sexual contact that the defendant MERCURE had with the plaintiff and disclosed to the defendant HUBBARD in 1994 was absolutely and unequivocally sexual abuse.

51. As the plaintiff went to the defendant MERCURE due to his mental problems and for help due to his being raped as a young child and the defendant MERCURE utilizing that confidential information for his own benefit and to exploit the plaintiff, was a case of sexual abuse.

52. This quote was published in the January 29, 2008 Post Star in Warren County and other media outlets and published to third persons.

53. This quote was false and defamatory and proximately caused the plaintiff damages.

54. These statements were made with the intent to publish same, and with the intent to malign and injure the plaintiff.

55. The statement by Kenneth Goldfarb was made on and for the behalf of the defendant DIOCESE and defendant HUBBARD and also upon information and belief, with the consent and request of the defendant MERCURE.

56. The defendant HUBBARD has made or had these false comments made to try to excuse or cover the fact that since 1994, defendant HUBBARD has allowed defendant MERCURE to remain in the active ministry and be around innocent children and other vulnerable persons despite being on notice of FR. MERCURE'S predatory behavior.

57. The defendant HUBBARD continues to cover for and protect pedophile priests, and particularly because of a severe priest shortage in the Albany Diocese and has allowed that administrative problem result in a known danger to continue to children and vulnerable persons.

58. Had the defendant HUBBARD admitted that the sexual abuse of the plaintiff was actually abuse in 1994, then the defendant HUBBARD would be compelled to address his own malfeasance in allowing the defendant MERCURE to remain in active ministry for the next fourteen years.

59. Upon information and belief, at least ten additional young men have come forward to state they were sexually abused by defendant GARY MERCURE since defendant MERCURE was first publicly identified in January 2008. Despite these additional victims of childhood sexual abuse by FR. MERCURE, the defendant HUBBARD has still not formally and finally removed this dangerous predator.

60. Approximately half of the young men are in their mid-thirties and these victims of defendant FR. MERCURE are from the Queensbury, Warren County area and St. Mary's Church.

61. Approximately half of the young men are in the early to mid-forties and these victims of defendant FR. MERCURE are from the Albany area and particularly St. Theresa of Avila.

62. These persons have all been encouraged to talk to and give assistance to Warren County District Attorney Kate Hogan who upon information and belief has relayed information to these victims that she will not file or pursue criminal charges against the defendant MERCURE.

63. Upon information and belief, District Attorney Kate Hogan has investigated these claims of pedophilia in Warren County, and she has indicated to the ALBANY DIOCESE that defendant MERCURE has molested numerous children, and she knows this priest has abused children in Warren County, but to date the defendants have not made a final removal from ministry.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief, damages in the amount of Two Million ($2,000,000.00) Dollars, and an appropriate amount in punitive damages and for such further and other relief the Court deems just and equitable.


DATED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MAY 23, 2008

Yours etc.,


____________________
JOHN A. ARETAKIS
Attorney for Plaintiff
JOHN WATKINS


No, you haven't. The Church is secretive by nature, but I do trust that they are doing something to solve the problem, not least of which is to remove the problems from their ranks.
I think your trust is a bit misplaced.

And when I hear nothing about what is being done, mine general inclination is that that is because there is nothing being done.






I think your trust is a bit misplaced.

happened in 04. read the article.

EDIT: right around when the other allegations were coming out, so no chance for the pope to do anything about it (unless he knew about the problem, which has never been suggested, let alone proven).

Here's the link to the bit I quoted in my last post. (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/080530)


Also some more (http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/16143470/detail.html), now what were you saying about it isn't happening anymore?
Affidavit Alleges Sexual Abuse In Catholic Schools

POSTED: 8:09 pm MDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 8:58 pm MDT May 2, 2008


EL PASO, Texas -- The affidavit, from the David Renteria case, explained a plaintiff, identified as “John Doe 1,” accused Brother Samuel F. Martinez of sexually abusing him between 1983 and 1985, while Martinez was principal of Cathedral High School.

This would have been during the time frame when Renteria attended Cathedral.

The document explained, “Br. Sam Martinez sexually abused and exploited John Doe 1, including the showing to plaintiff of pornographic videos. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that other students were also sexually abused and exploited by Br. Sam Martinez.”

In the plaintiff’s original petition, filed in 2004, the former student alleged under oath, “Br. Sam Martinez sexually abused and exploited John Doe 1, including the showing to plaintiff of pornographic videos. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that other students were also sexually abused and exploited by Br. Sam Martinez.”

The plaintiff also alleged that “The sexual abuse inflicted on him by Br. Sam Martinez was extensive, disturbing, and was associated with the use of pornographic videos which depicted sexual abuse of young girls by older men including the depiction of physically painful episodes of the abuse of minor girls.”

A history of El Paso priests sexually abusing children is included in a recent book written by Dr. Leon Podles, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.

One title of the book is called, “The Rectory Boys of El Paso.”

Podles said, “It was one of the oldest, best documented in some ways, one of the worst abuse cases I came across.”

Podles' chapter on El Paso focused on a group of pedophile priests who abused young parishioners during the '50s and '60s and a local bishop looked away.

Podles said, “Abusive priests were around for decades more, as the affidavit alleges.”

Renteria’s attorneys said they do not allege Renteria was sexually abused while he attended local Catholic schools or even knew about it.

Authorities said the lawsuit against the former Cathedral principal, Br. Sam Martinez, was settled out of court.

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1174/cham20anb9.jpg
It's a nun and it's a man.

Well, here we go again. "Women should be allowed to be priests!" So how come the men aren't screaming "Men should be allowed to be nuns!" I mean, the shear zaniness of our gender role debates is absolutely insane!
They should be allowed to be by my values ... though at least their are similar rolls in the church already for them.

Maybe they are less inclined because in todays world the male role is perceived as stronger by society and they do not want to take on what they view to be a weaker stance.

But personally if there was a wish I would wish them to be able to

Why? It's irrational for him not to.The pope if infallible and you are not. So as a Catholic I am inclined to believe the infallible pope over you.

The pope if infallible and you are not. So as a Catholic I am inclined to believe the infallible pope over you.

Do you actually believe that?

Do you actually believe that?

Ehhh really it makes sense they have to in order to justify that there is some actual merit for the direction the church takes

It does not make sense to me and is rather silly but they need something to attempt to tie their religion on earth to their deity

The pope if infallible and you are not. So as a Catholic I am inclined to believe the infallible pope over you.

Remember, though, that there are conditions that must be met for infallibility. The last time infallibility was declared was 1950-something, so I don't think this was an infallible decision.

That's not to say you should always disregard the position of the Pope; he's still an authority of the faith. But this was not an infallible decision. (I think.)

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1174/cham20anb9.jpg
It's a nun and it's a man.
:eek:
so that's what happened to Hibari-kun (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=1524).
:D

The pope if infallible and you are not. So as a Catholic I am inclined to believe the infallible pope over you.

It is my understanding that the Pope is considered to be infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. This has been only done once, when, in 1950 the Pope said that the Assumption of the Virgin is an article of faith.

His pronouncements on women in the clergy, married clergy, birth control and many other things have not been made Ex Cathedra, hence are not infallible.

It is my understanding that the Pope is considered to be infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. This has been only done once, when, in 1950 the Pope said that the Assumption of the Virgin is an article of faith.

His pronouncements on women in the clergy, married clergy, birth control and many other things have not been made Ex Cathedra, hence are not infallible.

Probably a smarter long term plan ...

Having that tie to infallibility to give him legitimacy without having to utilize it so bad decisions later are easier to chock up to human error without having to whitewash and muddy the waters around the decision later on

I mean think if they had made a decision like blacks could not be priests speaking as Ex Catherda back in the day. When society changed to start to swing away from that viewpoint it would be a lot harder to explain away.

It is my understanding that the Pope is considered to be infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. This has been only done once, when, in 1950 the Pope said that the Assumption of the Virgin is an article of faith.
Otherwise you'd get crazy situations like...


Pope Johnny Paul (to aid): "Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world."

2 months later...

Pope Benny (to aid): "Strawberry ice cream is the best ice cream in the world."

God: "Ahhh! Contradictory infallible statements, endorsed by moi!!!"

*God explodes*

The pope if infallible and you are not. So as a Catholic I am inclined to believe the infallible pope over you.

I'm a Pope too. What's your point?

I'm a Pope too. What's your point?

No I'm Brian and so is my wife! ... um I mean Pope

It is my understanding that the Pope is considered to be infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. This has been only done once, when, in 1950 the Pope said that the Assumption of the Virgin is an article of faith.

His pronouncements on women in the clergy, married clergy, birth control and many other things have not been made Ex Cathedra, hence are not infallible.

Your understanding is correct, as far as I know. Papal infallibility is actually much more boring than people think. I mean, no one's every run on the campaign that they support family values because they believe in the Assumption.

Its just another action of using the Bible in a strange way. While Jesus had only male Disciples (clearly stated anyway), and using an old tactic of "What the Bible doesn't state means they didn't want it" (similar to those using the Bible to condone Homosexuality or Marijuana) from the lack of mentioning breeds someone feeling it is right. Lack of it being mentioned doesn't mean its right, it just means back in those days they didn't have to worry about it.
Long story short, Paul in his letters could say thing from Women can teach the word to they should be silent. It depends on the context of what he was writing about, that is how some of his passages could be misleading(like alot of the books in the Bible, it revolves around the context of who was writing it too!)

Or better yet: Education. Child sex crimes are preventable through education. The warning signs both internal and external are easy to identify and if acted upon early, perfectly controllable. The trick is knowing what they are and how to handle them.

That´s precisely why I suggested psychological evaluation prior to someone becoming a priest.

In terms of how they're handling molestation cases, they ARE getting better. I said nothing about the women priest issue in that one.

They may be improving on that, but there´s not much else that they have improved in the past 40 years.


Thanks.


makes life worth living ;)

You´re welcome and yes, the fluffling makes life worth living.

Pope Benny and Co. coming to you with more BS. You would think, with declining numbers in the priesthood and with the scandals concerning pedophile priests, the Vacantican would enthusiastically accept women in the priesthood. It seems like they just want the Church to go down fighting for more reactionary stupidity. And using that specious comment about Christ only having male disciples to justify their untenable stance leads me to believe that, unless the leadership of this hoary old mausoleum radically changes it's attitude, it deserves to die.

Vatican will excommunicate female priests
Explicit decree punishes women, bishops who ordain them

updated 1:48 p.m. MT, Thurs., May. 29, 2008
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of female priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the church's existing ban on female priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

"I think the reason they're doing this is that they've realized there is more and more support among Catholics for ordaining women, and they want to make clear that this is a no-no," Reese said.

The church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Proponents of women's ordination said Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time.

They cite the letters of Saint Paul, some of the earliest texts of Christianity, to show that women played important roles in the early church.

Sorry, but as much as I really do agree that this stance is not reasonable, that comment offends me as a Catholic. Not to be too picky, but I think that that comment is a bit harsh. You may have whatever opinion of the Vatican you want, but that just sounds ignorant.

After reading the last thirteen pages of this thread, I see that it contains the standard vitriolic, secular, emotional and ignorant "criticisms" of the Catholic Church. Not only has this come from the usual non-Catholic Christians and atheists, but also from ex-Catholics, often educated in Catholic schools and who are unfortunately often not very effectively catchechised in the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church.

I will confess from the get go that I am a staunch Catholic. Many of the ignorant comments I have found to be unfortunate, but I hope that with my post I can offer some enlightenment to many misinformed and ignorant posters.

As a starting point:

"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be." - Archbishop Fulton Sheen

My challenge to those of you on this thread is to clarify your undertanding of the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church, through official Catholic sources such as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Only then can you seriously understand such articles as that posted initially on this thread. I guarantee that many of you will be surprised at what you read and will be embarrassed at your ignorance. Once you grasp the teachings of the Church, both based in scripture and tradition, then the Church's position becomes clear. In the instance of the ordination of women, and without me going into the theology and scriptural reasons, the official position of the Catholic Church was summarised by Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Simply stated, the Church doesn't have the authority, from Jesus himself, to do so.

The Catholic Church is not an institution that bows to the whims of culture and contemporary society, and in particular to secularism and fads. Unlike the rest of of society which blows around in the winds of popularism. The Catholic Church has survived numerous issues, problems, trials and tribulations over the past 2000 years, and will continue to do so, and this is proof that it is backed by God. There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world, the largest denomination of Christianity and as many as the followers of Islam. Contrary to popular belief the Catholic Church is growing (unlike most other Christian denominations) especially in non-Western nations (where in general, secular and moral relativism have taken an unfortunate hold) and so are ordinations to the priesthood. In fact, there are actually more priests today than fifty years ago. As always, we as "Westerners" tend to define things based on our own worldview and as church attendance is declining in our Western socity, we assume this follows throughout the world. This assumption is erroneous.

In relation to some specific points raised over the posts:

1. The Church has since the time of Christ's death always belived in the full divinity of Christ. It was confirmed by the Council of Niceae in 325. The Council itself was the first of such kind in the Church's history, and dealt with among many things, the heresy of one Bishop in Alexandria, Arius, who did not believe in the full divinity of Christ. Arius' view was espoused by other very small minorities in the centuries since Christ's death, which were all condemned as heretical. The overwhelming vote of the bishops gathered at Niceae, was somewhere in the vicinity of 300 against Arius' views, and two for.

2. The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, especially in the US, is a sad chapter in the history of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic I find it terrible that priests in a position of trust and guidance should take advantage of young children. It is clearly a sin. One of the central tenants of Christianity is forgiveness and repentence, and that we trust in God to guide, forgive and reform where He wills it. Priests are men of God, but they are also human and subject to human desires. They are not supermen. It is with this in mind that the relevant bishops felt that moving the offending priest away from the "temptation" and with prayer and trust in God, that the said priest would stop sinning. In heinsight moving the offender around was clearly the wrong method. The Catholic Church has apologised sincerely, most recently being the Pope's comments on his visit to the US. I commend this and have welcomed the message that any priests or religious caught in the future will be handed over to the state authorities.

You can not say that the actions of a small minority of priests is representative of the priesthood as a whole, just as you cannot tarnish the entire educational system, other Christian denominations, the Scout movement, etc for the sexual abuses committed by a small minority of their members (often in percentages greater than the Catholic Church).

I spent thirteen years in Catholic schools, and never was I or any of my many friends abused, and I never heard of it occurring with any one else for that matter. My father, uncle, and many cousins went through the same system and will all say the same. In my 28 years of being a Catholic I have never seen anything but inspiration, charity, good works, and fine models of living in those priests, brothers and nuns that I have come into contact with.

3. Excommunication is not the appropriate penalty for the priests mentioned above. Forgiveness and rehabilitation is the only proper action. If the Church excomunicated all sinners, then there would be no one left in it. We all sin, and all in varying degrees. Christ hung out with sinners and the Bible is full of references to the Church being comprised on saints and sinners. Excommunication is appropriate for heretics, schismatics, apostates, and those who defy the dogma and teachings of the Catholic Church. A prime example is the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, who was asked by the Pope at the time to recant 41 errors upon pain of excommunication. He didn't and expressly continued his teachings that were contrary to that of the Catholic Church. Hence he was excommunicated.

I hope that the above comments and points go some way towards clearing up some misconceptions and ignorant beliefs in relation to the Catholic Church. I am not here to convert any one to Catholicism, but in the interests of informed and enlightened debate I wanted to point out that to understand the matters at hand you need to have an understanding of where the Catholic Church derives its position on many matters that are at the forefront of todays issues. Don't just base things on hearsay, institutional bias, or ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry - read the sources and approach the matters logically.

I'm a Pope too. What's your point?

Your not the Catholic Pope, so you get not respect.

Pope Benny and Co. coming to you with more BS. You would think, with declining numbers in the priesthood and with the scandals concerning pedophile priests, the Vacantican would enthusiastically accept women in the priesthood.
I am not a catholic [not even close really], but I'm getting tired of seeing shit like this.

The reason the church doesn't allow female bishops is the same as the reason they don't change very many things. IT'S PART OF THEIR TRADITION AND THEIR BELIEFS.

Numbers aren't everything and a church should not change its beliefs just so it can gain a few followers...otherwise what's the point in believing anything at all?

You´re welcome and yes, the fluffling makes life worth living.

That's the best thing I heard today goddamnit!

the priest manipulated him into a sexual relationship.wtf?? how can somebody be manipulated into a sexual relationship?

There is no "Biblical Meaning" outside of what the person who reads the bible assigns to it....be it fantastic fables, distorted stories of alien visitations or the literal interpretation.

Incorrect. This would imply that there are numerous spectrums of truth. This is not what the bible teaches, and it is certainly not what God teaches. The bible has a specific message which is always relevant to the human condition

The authority who decides the issue is either god or the reader, neither of which can be affected by YOUR opinion.
The authority is always God since scripture clearly teaches he is sovereign.
Everyone has a reason to read the bible, it colours their perception of the book.
Indeed they do, but everyone who reads the bible and attempts to gain the message from it quite often tries to push it into prearranged boxes. Unsound methodology and it creates distortion.
Words are meaningless wihtout context.

Not necessarily. The Ten Commandments for example. Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis chapter 1. There are plenty of scripture where context is not required, but when it is given the power and potency of the verse is increased, by broadening understanding. Primarily it is when the meaning of scripture is worked out within the context that it is most certainly required.

and EVERYONE sees the context in different way: Does a specific word mean red or blue is insignificant if most of the context is translated correctly.

No. Many people see the context in the same way, if they do their research and take off 20th century goggles with our aloof cultural snobbish superiority. Once that is done and reading of supporting texts and historical documents begin, the context exceptionally illuminated. In most cases.

Consider Leviticus:
27:3-4 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Literal interpretation would be that male is 67% more valuable than a woman.

Allow me to give you a proper exegesis of this passage, since you have butchered it by ignoring what the rest of Leviticus, Exodus, and Genesis teaches.

This scripture firstly teaches that anyone may make a vow of a person to Yahweh. In the neighboring cults such a vow was the means of devoting a person to the sanctuary for service, for participation in the cultic ritual, or for sacrifice, especially if the vow concerned a child (cf. 18:21; 20:2–5).

The making and the fulfillment of such a vow in Israel, however, had to take a different course, because human sacrifice was banished, and the servants at the sanctuary, for the most part, were Levites.

The dedication of Samuel to the sanctuary at Shilo was an exception (1 Sam 1:11), although it is conceivable that a dedicated person could have been made a part of the maintenance staff at the sanctuary. In any case, an Israelite who makes a vow of oneself or of a family member to God is to fulfill that vow by contributing to the sanctuary a predetermined payment.

This practice is similar to that of the redemption of the first-born children (Exod 13:13; 34:20; Num 18:16). This law fixes the price for a person, not letting it fluctuate according to conditions of the market. The use of the unusual technical term ûkr[
, “value, price,” establishes a definite tie with the legislative tradition behind 5:14–26[6:7].

It is good to point as Wenham agrees that the price during this time for a person seems to be set according to the price a person might fetch in the slave market (Wenham, ZAW 90 [1978] 264), but the price of slaves varied in different times and locations, as I. Mendelsohn (Slavery in the Ancient Near East, 117–18) observes. In this law the price was set on the basis of a person’s strength, not on the basis of a person’s intrinsic value as a human being.

The price, therefore, varied according to age and gender. Since women were not considered to be able to work as hard as men, their price was less by a third to a half. The same was true of children and the elderly. The inclusion of children means that a head of the household might vow members of his family as well as himself. The price may be charted.

But there is another question. The figures given clearly indicate that very few people could even afford to make this vow in the first place, since the average wage was about a shekel a month. It may be assumed that the practice of vowing oneself to God took place infrequently and under unique circumstances.

An exception to these valuations is made it is good to point out, for anyone who has made the vow of a person but is too poor to pay the valuation as prescribed. Someone is to dym[h, “station,” that person vowed, or the one who has vowed another member of his family is to station the one vowed before the priest. The priest is to assess the vowed person’s worth and then set the price that he can afford.

Rabbinic interpretation has established that the price set is to leave that person enough to live on, including a bed, a mattress, a cushion, and the tools needed for his trade (Rashi, 131a). This is another example of the law’s merciful concern for the poor by providing alternatives so that they may fulfill the requirement of the law (e.g., 5:11; 14:21–22).

This is a sound biblical exegesis of that passage taking into account the context of the entire bible. The culture. And its meaning.

I think we now have a sound example of poor biblical exegesis. Namely yours. We have now seen that Literal interpretation is not that a male is 67% more valuable than a woman.

We have also seen that Protestant christians wont interpret it as Leviticus is old testament so it doesn't apply, except as a reminder how good Jesus was. Instead they will point out just as i have done the merciful attributes of the levitical law, and further go on to elaborate how the law upholds the sovereignty and righteousness of God.

But, Historians in their view as seeing it as an example of a patriatrarchal society where male slaves are more valuable is in part correct, as the labour was hard, heavy and difficult which is not often suitable for a woman.

God might have a different opinion, as would the pope or the reader.

I'm fairly certain that was the point God was making. The pope on the other hand who knows what he will come out with, that's even if he has read the bible.

And the quality translation or historical background? You end up with different values for man and woman unless you have really f'ed up the translation regardless of the historical context.

As we have seen we do not end up with different values for a man and a woman.

In the end who is right? Well, except the unfathomable, unguessable, undecipharable, unseeable, untouchable, unsmellable, unhearable GOD herself - Of course!

I will leave this in quotes for all time. It proves your arrogance and lack of understanding for the worlds largest faith. If you want to learn I'm willing to teach, but not in such a confrontational and rude manner.

I am not a catholic [not even close really], but I'm getting tired of seeing shit like this.

The reason the church doesn't allow female bishops is the same as the reason they don't change very many things. IT'S PART OF THEIR TRADITION AND THEIR BELIEFS.

Numbers aren't everything and a church should not change its beliefs just so it can gain a few followers...otherwise what's the point in believing anything at all?

Indeed you are correct.

The church does not, and need not care about its numbers. It is growing remarkably well at this point in time globally and is seeing resurgence within the West.

The church will not conform to a moral vacuum such as Western Culture, but instead prefer the unchangable moral absolute of Gods gifted grace.

I asked Jesus and He replied, "Some of those lady priests are hot!"

:)

Incorrect. This would imply that there are numerous spectrums of truth. This is not what the bible teaches, and it is certainly not what God teaches. The bible has a specific message which is always relevant to the human condition

Bible has a specific message, it's just that the message depends on the interpretation of the reader.

There is no Biblical absolute.

The authority is always God since scripture clearly teaches he is sovereign.
So, who are YOU to judge someone else's viewpoint of the Bible?

Not necessarily. The Ten Commandments for example.
Taken without context it might simply be petty rules for a small social club.

Genesis chapter 1.

Taken with the context - first book of the bible - it might be either literal passage, fantastic fable, figurative telling or a story copied from an older source.

Each interpretation is (roughly speaking) EQUALLY correct.

Taken without context it would just be a children's story to any educated person.

The price, therefore, varied according to age and gender.
Which is exactly my point.

Literally, woman is worth less than a man.

Add context and you simply open up MORE ways of interpreting the passage.

I asked Jesus and He replied, "Some of those lady priests are hot!"but he needed the presence of twelve other dudes and couldn't bang one hot chick from magdala. jesus was a fag, no doubt about it

Bible has a specific message...yes it's "submit, or else..."

but he needed the presence of twelve other dudes and couldn't bang one hot chick from magdala. jesus was a fag, no doubt about it

Jesus was called "rabbi". Rabbis had to be married at the time. See what I'm getting at?

yes it's "submit, or else..."

Hehehehe, I like that..

Jesus was called "rabbi". Rabbis had to be married at the time. See what I'm getting at?

That he was bi?

Indeed you are correct.

The church does not, and need not care about its numbers. It is growing remarkably well at this point in time globally and is seeing resurgence within the West.

The church will not conform to a moral vacuum such as Western Culture, but instead prefer the unchangeable moral absolute of Gods gifted grace.

please please tell me this is sarcasm. Cause if were talking about the catholic church thats frankly just not true. For one "unchangeable moral absolute"???? seriously. ok for one thing the interpretation of that "unchangeable moral absolute" has, in fact, changed. Second the church doesn't care about its numbers???? Uh huh??? so why bother trying to convert people? why the constant fight with any and all other religions? Isn't that about numbers? And finally why the attempt to convert Every Single new population the church encounters?

That he was bi?

Perhaps what he´s trying to get at is that Jesus might have been asexual, like jellyfish...

Perhaps what he´s trying to get at is that Jesus might have been asexual, like jellyfish...

So christians worship a jewish zombie jellyfish?

So christians worship a jewish zombie jellyfish?

Maybe.:eek:

Perhaps that´s the reason Jesus can multitask. All those jelly tentacles!

This is only because they rejected the Pope's harem idea.

Jesus was called "rabbi". Rabbis had to be married at the time. See what I'm getting at?that jesus and andrew were officially married?

please please tell me this is sarcasm. Cause if were talking about the catholic church thats frankly just not true. For one "unchangeable moral absolute"???? seriously. ok for one thing the interpretation of that "unchangeable moral absolute" has, in fact, changed. Second the church doesn't care about its numbers???? Uh huh??? so why bother trying to convert people? why the constant fight with any and all other religions? Isn't that about numbers? And finally why the attempt to convert Every Single new population the church encounters?catholics make up one sixth of the global population, they don't really care about numbers but adherence to what they believe is jesus' purpose for his followers. and indeed their doctrine is not subject to fashions, or at least only in minor issues. today, the fight with other religions is always about doctrine, not about people. that may have been different in times past, however.

This is only because they rejected the Pope's harem idea.
Not willing to compromise at all, that's their problem. The Church offered a very good deal: you can be a priest as long as you are the Holy Father's love slave. That's better than what the cardinals have going.

Bible has a specific message, it's just that the message depends on the interpretation of the reader.

There is no Biblical absolute.

There is a biblical absolute. It is the opinions that disagree. There are many denominations and only one of them is correct, or all are wrong. The bible has a specific driven meaning.


So, who are YOU to judge someone else's viewpoint of the Bible?

Someone who is educated on the subject. Someone who preaches on the subject, someone who deals with the subject as a living makes me quallified.


Taken without context it might simply be petty rules for a small social club.

Taken with the context - first book of the bible - it might be either literal passage, fantastic fable, figurative telling or a story copied from an older source.

Each interpretation is (roughly speaking) EQUALLY correct.

Taken without context it would just be a children's story to any educated person.

Each interpretation is not correct because the application is entirely different.


[/qote]Which is exactly my point.

Literally, woman is worth less than a man.

Add context and you simply open up MORE ways of interpreting the passage.[/QUOTE]

No. A woman is not worth less than a man. She was not as valuable for labour intensive work and thusly fetched a lower price. Be careful on how you word it as either one has explicit implications.

please please tell me this is sarcasm. Cause if were talking about the catholic church thats frankly just not true. For one "unchangeable moral absolute"????

The bible presents morality as black and white and eternal. God has given a right and wrong the church must not bow to it. Although some have, which needs to go through a process of correction.

I hold high respect for the catholic church for not surrendering to the moral pluarism that is within western culture today. Although their interpretation is slightly skewed, they do not surrender to outside pressure and opinion unlike some protestent denominations.


seriously. ok for one thing the interpretation of that "unchangeable moral absolute" has, in fact, changed.

Really? I doubt that, the bible is quite clear on morality and last time I checked it hadn't changed.

Second the church doesn't care about its numbers???? Uh huh??? so why bother trying to convert people? why the constant fight with any and all other religions? Isn't that about numbers? And finally why the attempt to convert Every Single new population the church encounters?

Spreading the gospel is not about numbers. It is about following the commandment of Jesus Christ to go into the world and make disciples. If you had bothered to read the bible before deciding to comment about it, I wouldn't have to type this.

However, it is about love for God, and love for people that we spread the gospel not out of marking a few more notches on our church post.

Christians believe that those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, are going to hell. Would you stand bye and let someone burn to death? So think about how a Christian feels when we know it is for an eternity.

We will of course tell the good news, and I am not ashamed at all of you commenting on it. My advice is for you to listen, so at the very least you will be semi educated on the subject and not make random posts like you have just produced.

Pope Benny and Co. coming to you with more BS. You would think, with declining numbers in the priesthood and with the scandals concerning pedophile priests, the Vacantican would enthusiastically accept women in the priesthood. It seems like they just want the Church to go down fighting for more reactionary stupidity. And using that specious comment about Christ only having male disciples to justify their untenable stance leads me to believe that, unless the leadership of this hoary old mausoleum radically changes it's attitude, it deserves to die.

Vatican will excommunicate female priests
Explicit decree punishes women, bishops who ordain them

updated 1:48 p.m. MT, Thurs., May. 29, 2008
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of female priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the church's existing ban on female priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

"I think the reason they're doing this is that they've realized there is more and more support among Catholics for ordaining women, and they want to make clear that this is a no-no," Reese said.

The church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Proponents of women's ordination said Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time.

They cite the letters of Saint Paul, some of the earliest texts of Christianity, to show that women played important roles in the early church.

They're not saying Christ only had male disciples, just male apostles.

Not taking a position, just saying you might want to make that clear.

They're not saying Christ only had male disciples, just male apostles.

Not taking a position, just saying you might want to make that clear.

No, it is very clear that he only had male disciples in his one to one teaching of them.

Now he certainly has male and female disciples.

I do not agree with the ordination of female preists.
I fully agree with the Vatican's stance.

Unless you are Catholic, your opinion is meaningless.
If you are Catholic, you agree with the Vatican.

Feminists and non-Catholics; like it or not, your opinion is worthless.

I don't see why Non-Catholics have any problem with the Church instituting whatever laws it wants. STFU about it already.

Someone who is educated on the subject. Someone who preaches on the subject, someone who deals with the subject as a living makes me quallified.


Thereby, someone educated in the subject and does so as a living, but has a different interpretation would be just as correct no?

If so, how do we know if you're just as wrong?

The Pope is the person MOST qualified, MOST educated, and deals with it in his life more than anyone else. Everyone else in the Vatican is a close second.

Everyone else? Exactly

The Pope > You

Infallible, hehe

Thereby, someone educated in the subject and does so as a living, but has a different interpretation would be just as correct no?

If so, how do we know if you're just as wrong?

I think you will find that the question was who am I to comment? I answered that as a member of the peer group I am someone capable of commenting.

You will only know if I am right or wrong if you study it yourself.

The Pope is the person MOST qualified, MOST educated, and deals with it in his life more than anyone else. Everyone else in the Vatican is a close second.

Everyone else? Exactly

The Pope > You

Infallible, hehe

:rolleyes:

There is a biblical absolute.
Which only the unanswering god has the authority on.

We mortals can ONLY have opinions and views about the bible, none of them more wrong or right than any other.
Someone who is educated on the subject. Someone who preaches on the subject, someone who deals with the subject as a living makes me quallified.
So, you're taking on the role of god by critizing others for their faith or interpretation of bible?

By which authority do you label, for example, certain protestant church leaders as heretics?

Each interpretation is not correct because the application is entirely different.
What does the application have to do with interpretation?

Each interpretation is (roughly speaking) correct, because the only one who can comment on them and has absolute authority won't do so....until person is judged in death, according to some, never according to others.

Which is exactly my point.

Literally, woman is worth less than a man.

Add context and you simply open up MORE ways of interpreting the passage.

No. A woman is not worth less than a man. She was not as valuable for labour intensive work and thusly fetched a lower price.

So, when human is valued by its labor value woman is worth less according to the passage?

In a capitalistic or slave-trade society that would directly translate to women are worth less.

You can't weasel your way out of the fact that according to a VALID interpretation women are worth less according to that passage in Leviticus.

Or alternatively, you open up leeway on interpreting women - shut your mouth! passages :P

The Pope is the person MOST qualified, MOST educated, and deals with it in his life more than anyone else. Everyone else in the Vatican is a close second.

Everyone else? Exactly

The Pope > You

Infallible, hehe

History has demonstrated the fallability of Popes on numerous occasions. Why would God, if he exists, allow a group of Cardinals to pick his representative on earth?

I don't particularly care what the Catholic Church does if it does not affect non-catholics - but then there is little it does that does not. Its wrong-headed backwardness when it comes to contraception is helping to increase the rate of HIV infection around the world.

Its wrong-headed backwardness when it comes to contraception is helping to increase the rate of HIV infection around the world.

I thought that had something to do with sex.

I really can't get these types, like catholic women who want to be a priest, or catholic homosexuals who want to be openly accepted by the church.

Catholic church sez: Thou catholic shalt obey the pope!
Catholic church sez: Thou catholic woman shan't be a priest!
Catholic church sez: Thou catholic cannot have homo sex!

...if you're catholic you know that. So why whine now? CHOOSE!
1.Be catholic OR be a female priest.
2.Be catholic OR have homo sex.

You cannot have both. (You can have none of them, of course. ;) )

I simply believe it'd be more controversial of the Vatican to do the opposite.

Which only the unanswering god has the authority on.

Goes to show how little of Christianity you understand. The Holy Spirit is real, and God relates with us every minute of every day. God answers many things, questions, prayers, debates.

Why don't you ask him yourself?

We mortals can ONLY have opinions and views about the bible, none of them more wrong or right than any other.

Incorrect. There is only one truth and only one meaning of the passages. One is right all the rest are wrong.

So, you're taking on the role of god by critizing others for their faith or interpretation of bible?

I'm not taking on the role of God, however I am debating the interpretation of others on scriptural texts as they are clearly incorrect. There is only one right and only one wrong. You continue to argue with a moral pluralism which is entirely uniblical and applies no where near to anything regarding Christianity or the bible.

By which authority do you label, for example, certain protestant church leaders as heretics?

My own God given free opinion.


What does the application have to do with interpretation?

For every interpretation there is an application. For example the original passage we wrangled over, your application in your interpretation would mean women are worth less in the eyes of God. This would conflict with Genesis chapter 2 and 3.

Thusly you can understand if you have the correct interpretation if the application is not graining against other verses in scripture.

In my opinion Application and interpretation are one and the same, though some people like to divide it down. I'm not wrangling over this issue.

Each interpretation is (roughly speaking) correct, because the only one who can comment on them and has absolute authority won't do so....until person is judged in death, according to some, never according to others.

No their not. One has women in authority the other does not. Neither is roughly correct, they are entirely opposite.

So, when human is valued by its labor value woman is worth less according to the passage?

You're taking it out of context again. A women in her ability to function as a heavy labourer is worth less for that specific task.

A women would be worth more if you were to employ her to lets say, give birth to children. A man would be significantly worth less at that.

In a capitalistic or slave-trade society that would directly translate to women are worth less.

Only for that specific job. But remember the values are not fixed according to scripture it is based on ability to pay. So in fact it wouldn't translate to what you're suggesting instead, what would be more appropriate is to pay someone appropriately for the job.

And while we are on this, service to God was not slavery, adjust you wording please. It was service to which you paid to go into, and service to which you paid to be redeemed from. Nothing like slavery at all

You can't weasel your way out of the fact that according to a VALID interpretation women are worth less according to that passage in Leviticus.

No I think I've pointed out nicely that women are not worth less, but instead are less suited to a particular job which is labour intensive.

Or alternatively, you open up leeway on interpreting women - shut your mouth! passages :P

Keep on topic, and I have had no reason from you to open up on any interpretation as of yet.

Instead all I have had is you presenting flawed logic on biblical exegesis, without any form of scriptural interpretation or passages to support you case. When it comes to church, we have already established that the church should not and does not care for secular opinion and instead relates to a biblical worldview which in a Christians eyes is superior.

So once again, if you wish to address matters regarding the church, then please do it from a biblical perspective.

History has demonstrated the fallability of Popes on numerous occasions. Why would God, if he exists, allow a group of Cardinals to pick his representative on earth?

I don't particularly care what the Catholic Church does if it does not affect non-catholics - but then there is little it does that does not. Its wrong-headed backwardness when it comes to contraception is helping to increase the rate of HIV infection around the world.

I agree with you 100%.

The bible mentions nothing about the Pope, instead it is a mutation of the apastolic gifting, which has been warped with humanistic church structure which can be found no where in scripture.

The Vaticans position on condoms in my eyes is unacceptable.

The Pope is the person MOST qualified, MOST educated, and deals with it in his life more than anyone else. Everyone else in the Vatican is a close second.

Everyone else? Exactly

The Pope > You

Infallible, hehe

No, wait. This is the one.

NSG > Cuxil (a given, really)

The Pope = Nazi, Hitler´s Youth, God speak to him? We are fucked up, people.

Fallible, you better believe it.

No Catholic priests can be women because Jesus' disciples were not women? Well, then, that means that Jesus' disciples>normal people, right? Well, we know that Jesus>his disciples, so I propose that, in order to be *considered* for a catholic priestship, one must be, at least in part, divine.

All non-divine members of the Catholic church will hereby be excommunicated.

"Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with him."

Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?", 1851

Well, the social norms of 2008 (or 1851, for that matter) are radically different from the social norms of c. 30 CE. In the Bible, Paul actually tells slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ, for fuck's sake. No self-respecting Catholic today believes in chattel slavery. (Or that women should obey their husbands, as the Bible also commanded.) It's pretty clear that the Bible was written for a different era.

Now, I won't get into debates over whether or not it's divinely inspired. I personally am an atheist. But let's say for a minute that it is inspired. God's not going to write a book for people 2,000 years in the future, he's writing for a patriarchal society in the frickin' desert in 30 CE, when slavery is OK and treating women like cattle is OK. Just as people today don't believe in slavery, they don't believe in the subordination of women or gender discrimination.

Food for thought: Spartacus' revolt had just 100 years earlier torn up half of Italy. The Judeo-Christians were being persecuted enough as it was. Could you imagine what the Romans would have done if they were fomenting slave revolts and threatening to upheave the male order?

I'm a little confused by why people have an issue with letting others live their faith in the way they want. If you are not Catholic, it does not affect you, so I fail to see the reasoning of pretty much everyone in this thread.

For example, if the Church wants the next Pope to be an ACTUAL Nazi (unlike Benedict), that's the cardinals' decision, because it is their faith.

"Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with him."

Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman?", 1851

Well, the social norms of 2008 (or 1851, for that matter) are radically different from the social norms of c. 30 CE. In the Bible, Paul actually tells slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ, for fuck's sake. No self-respecting Catholic today believes in chattel slavery. (Or that women should obey their husbands, as the Bible also commanded.) It's pretty clear that the Bible was written for a different era.

I agree with you that the bible was written in a different era, but I would disagree and argue that it was written for a different era, due to its numerous prophecies, eschatology etc etc. But you do highlight the difficulty of applying the moral and truthful principles of the bible in todays culture, which is seperating the principle from the cultural outworking, which requires discernment and patience.

For the issue regarding slavery, of course we're not going to insist that we have slaves again, since it has been abolished, but the principle that can be applied, is work to your best ability even when you don't like it, as Christ did for the world.

Now, I won't get into debates over whether or not it's divinely inspired.

It would just go to a dead end. The athiest and the Christian have completely different worldviews on the subject.

I personally am an atheist. But let's say for a minute that it is inspired. God's not going to write a book for people 2,000 years in the future, he's writing for a patriarchal society in the frickin' desert in 30 CE, when slavery is OK and treating women like cattle is OK. Just as people today don't believe in slavery, they don't believe in the subordination of women or gender discrimination.

I would disagree with you, citing the biblical principle of Logos from John chapter 1.

Food for thought: Spartacus' revolt had just 100 years earlier torn up half of Italy. The Judeo-Christians were being persecuted enough as it was. Could you imagine what the Romans would have done if they were fomenting slave revolts and threatening to upheave the male order?

I guess they would tear Jerusalem down stone by stone and enslave the entire population?

I guess they would tear Jerusalem down stone by stone and enslave the entire population?

Or expel the Jews from... Oh, wait they did that...

For example, if the Church wants the next Pope to be an ACTUAL Nazi (unlike Benedict), that's the cardinals' decision, because it is their faith.

But Pope Benny IS an ACTUAL NAZI.:rolleyes:

But Pope Benny IS an ACTUAL NAZI.:rolleyes:

No, he's not. Sorry to sound whiny, but I'm tired of people judging the Pope because he was unfortunate to live in Germany in the 1930s.

That's not to say the Pope doesn't sometimes act like a fascist, nor does it mean he doesn't have real character flaws. But attack those, not the imaginary ones.

But Pope Benny IS an ACTUAL SITH.:rolleyes:

Fi (http://synth.at.tut.by/pope-benedict-palpatine.jpg)xe (http://frafilm.blog.kataweb.it/files/2007/10/pope_palpatine.jpg)d. (http://themocker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/pope_palpatine.jpg)

No, he's not. Sorry to sound whiny, but I'm tired of people judging the Pope because he was unfortunate to live in Germany in the 1930s.

That's not to say the Pope doesn't sometimes act like a fascist, nor does it mean he doesn't have real character flaws. But attack those, not the imaginary ones.

He was enrolled in Hitler´s Youth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Early_life_.281927.E2.80.931951.29)

That face of his reflects pure evil. I see him and my blood runs cold. If someone could be an emissary of the very Devil, Joseph Ratzinger is that emissary.

He was enrolled in Hitler´s Youth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Early_life_.281927.E2.80.931951.29)

Along with every other German male, as the article on Hitler Youth says. When he enrolled, World War II was already going on and not joining was tantamount to deserting (which he ended up doing, anyway).

That face of his reflects pure evil. I see him and my blood runs cold. If someone could be an emissary of the very Devil, Joseph Ratzinger is that emissary.
Well, yes. My first reaction to seeing his picture was, "He looks a lot like Darth Vader's boss." But looks shouldn't be used a judge of goodness. :)

Well, yes. My first reaction to seeing his picture was, "He looks a lot like Darth Vader's boss." But looks shouldn't be used a judge of goodness. :)

Only as a judge of evil!

I'm a little confused by why people have an issue with letting others live their faith in the way they want. If you are not Catholic, it does not affect you, so I fail to see the reasoning of pretty much everyone in this thread.

For example, if the Church wants the next Pope to be an ACTUAL Nazi (unlike Benedict), that's the cardinals' decision, because it is their faith.

The reason for the thread is the reason for the forum. It engendered a lively discussion (or several) between people with different opinions. Most of them were intelligent and reasonably well informed, and while no minds were changed, we all learned something.

If this sort of thing bothers you, perhaps you're not in the right place.

The reason for the thread is the reason for the forum. It engendered a lively discussion (or several) between people with different opinions. Most of them were intelligent and reasonably well informed, and while no minds were changed, we all learned something.

If this sort of thing bothers you, perhaps you're not in the right place.

To that I'll also add that it's great when faith does not try to either ram itself down our throats(thats faith not letting us live how we would wish) and not trying to make laws governed by their dogma that would affect us all.