Disgusted at parish priest

grenache

I recently attended my local parish church in West Limerick for the first time in god knows how long. It was my grandmother's anniversary mass so i wanted to go for it, even though i'm not a mass goer anymore.

Anyways, our parish priest isn't the most popular of men around, and he certainly will be even less popular after last Sunday week. In the middle of his sermon, he started to talk about how the church was dealing with recent Ryan report findings on clerical sexual abuse. "Everybody has made mistakes, most will pay for them in this life of the next, nobody is perfect" was his way of explaining it. Then, as if to show the imperfectness of his congregration, he asked "Could all the couples who co-habating but not married, please stand up". "Living in sin is also a crime" he told us. :rolleyes: This was followed by a rant about married couples who want to baptise their children but are not mass attendees. At this time, about 5 or 6 people at the back of the church got up and walked out, and i felt like following them.

It was like something from the 1930s, a parish priest thinking he has the authority to say what he likes no matter how immoral or hurtful his comments are. What business is it of his if couples choose to live together?? In this day and age, unmarried co-habiting couples are ten a penny. And asking them to "please stand up", as if trying to shame them or something. I really couldn't believe my ears, the man had some nerve. I plan to write to the Bishop of Limerick to voice my anger at this priest's behaviour, he clearly has some major issues going on.

PDN

grenache wrote: »

What business is it of his if couples choose to live together??

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, it's certainly his business to proclaim Catholic teaching as a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. I don't understand the mindset of those who get offended at that. If I go to a synagogue I expect the rabbi to teach Jewish teaching, if I go to a Baptist church I expect the pastor to teach Baptist teaching, and if I go to a Catholic Church I should expect the priest to teach Catholic teaching.

Dave147

PDN wrote: »

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, it's certainly his business to proclaim Catholic teaching as a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. I don't understand the mindset of those who get offended at that. If I go to a synagogue I expect the rabbi to teach Jewish teaching, if I go to a Baptist church I expect the pastor to teach Baptist teaching, and if I go to a Catholic Church I should expect the priest to teach Catholic teaching.

The way he went about it? How ridiculous are you? That priest is wrong, it's black and white, there is no 'way about it'. He has no right to judge people who are co-habiting and not married, if I was catholic (which I'm not, THANK GOD - excuse the irony) I would have gone up to him and told him to shut his mouth. Then walked out.

Ridiculous isn't a strong enough word for it.

we'llallhavetea_old

Oh dear god! What a prick! If i was there i would have walked out. For the love of god, is he gonna confess all his 'sins' for everyone else to hear? Load of rubbish. Get down off that pony buddy! And singling out unmarried couples? Because god knows paedophiles just pale in comparison to sex before marriage! Raahh! These people make me livid.

PDN

Dave147 wrote: »

The way he went about it? How ridiculous are you? That priest is wrong, it's black and white, there is no 'way about it'. He has no right to judge people who are co-habiting and not married, if I was catholic (which I'm not, THANK GOD - excuse the irony) I would have gone up to him and told him to shut his mouth. Then walked out.

Ridiculous isn't a strong enough word for it.

As a Catholic priest in a Catholic church he has every right to teach that church's standards. If people don't want to listen to Catholic teaching then they need to ask themselves why the heck they are sitting in a Catholic church.

BTW, I am not a Catholic myself.

kona

Dave147 wrote: »

The way he went about it? How ridiculous are you? That priest is wrong, it's black and white, there is no 'way about it'. He has no right to judge people who are co-habiting and not married, if I was catholic (which I'm not, THANK GOD - excuse the irony) I would have gone up to him and told him to shut his mouth. Then walked out.

Ridiculous isn't a strong enough word for it.

How about you just cop on? You wouldnt get up infront of anybody and tell them to shut up.
The priest has every right to say what he wants, if you dont like it...leave.

Dave147

PDN wrote: »

As a Catholic priest in a Catholic church he has every right to teach that church's standards. If people don't want to listen to Catholic teaching then they need to ask themselves why the heck they are sitting in a Catholic church.

BTW, I am not a Catholic myself.

That churches standards are that unmarried couples can't live together and they should be named and shamed in front of everyone? Do the Catholic Church have an answer for everything, for every situation that arises they seem to have some stupid rule. God I hate the church so much, I hope you all boycott his mass.

kona

Dave147 wrote: »

That churches standards are that unmarried couples can't live together and they should be named and shamed in front of everyone? Do the Catholic Church have an answer for everything, for every situation that arises they seem to have some stupid rule. God I hate the church so much, I hope you all boycott his mass.

cop on and respect peoples religion and beliefs. WHo the hell are you to question others?

Dave147

PDN, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm just flabbergasted at this priest in particular. However kona is following me around and has already been banned from another forum.

PDN

Dave147 wrote: »

That churches standards are that unmarried couples can't live together and they should be named and shamed in front of everyone? Do the Catholic Church have an answer for everything, for every situation that arises they seem to have some stupid rule. God I hate the church so much, I hope you all boycott his mass.

So you don't agree with Catholic teaching. That's fine - so don't go to a Catholic Church. It's a free country.

But if anyone chooses to attend a Catholic Church then don't come whinging on here because the priest teaches Catholic morality.

As I said, the way he did it (shaming people) is what I would disagree with. There's better ways of skinning a cat.

Dave147

PDN wrote: »

So you don't agree with Catholic teaching. That's fine - so don't go to a Catholic Church. It's a free country.

But if anyone chooses to attend a Catholic Church then don't come whinging on here because the priest teaches Catholic morality.

As I said, the way he did it (shaming people) is what I would disagree with. There's better ways of skinning a cat.

Agreed, I don't go to Church. Only for funerals actually. So are you saying that if you don't live by all Catholic teachings you're not a true Catholic, and to be Catholic you must agree with everything?

What other possible way could he get the message across that he disagrees with unmarried couples living together. As a matter of interest, is that dealt with in the bible? Not referring to sex whatsoever, just the co-habiting.

PDN

Dave147 wrote: »

Agreed, I don't go to Church. Only for funerals actually. So are you saying that if you don't live by all Catholic teachings you're not a true Catholic, and to be Catholic you must agree with everything?

I'm not a Catholic, so I wouldn't presume to dictate what makes someone a true Catholic. But if you go to a Catholic Church then you should expect them to preach Catholic teaching.

What other possible way could he get the message across that he disagrees with unmarried couples living together.

He could teach it without publicly identifying anyone. He could explain that sex is a gift from God that is enjoyed to its fullest extent in marriage and that it is, in the eyes of his Church, cheapened in other contexts.

As a matter of interest, is that dealt with in the bible? Not referring to sex whatsoever, just the co-habiting.

Stuff being in the Bible doesn't have that much to do with whether it becomes Catholic teaching or not. (But I would say that as a biased non-Catholic, wouldn't I? ) The Bible does forbid any kind of sexual immorality and teaches about it within the context of marriage.

Dave147

PDN wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, so I wouldn't presume to dictate what makes someone a true Catholic. But if you go to a Catholic Church then you should expect them to preach Catholic teaching.


He could teach it without publicly identifying anyone. He could explain that sex is a gift from God that is enjoyed to its fullest extent in marriage and that it is, in the eyes of his Church, cheapened in other contexts.


Stuff being in the Bible doesn't have that much to do with whether it becomes Catholic teaching or not. (But I would say that as a biased non-Catholic, wouldn't I? ) The Bible does forbid any kind of sexual immorality and teaches about it within the context of marriage.

I clearly said though, co-habiting without including sex. We assume that if a couple are unmarried and living together then they have sex. But what about just living together, is that seen as a sin? I'm not sure. I think the best thing for Catholics to do, is pick and choose what they want to follow. It's so outdated it's scary. PDN as a matter of interest what religion are you a part of?

jill_valentine

Dave147 wrote: »

Agreed, I don't go to Church. Only for funerals actually. So are you saying that if you don't live by all Catholic teachings you're not a true Catholic, and to be Catholic you must agree with everything?

By definition, yes. Catholicism has lots of rules. If you don't follow them, or at least recognise them as "the rules", then you're not a Catholic. Christian, possibly, but not Catholic. Neither is anything to be ashamed of, or anything, but yeah, you can't really be surprised by a Catholic priest attempting to impose Catholic morality.

That's just sort of how it works. You might not like what the Priest has to say, but as previously pointed out, he is just voicing the standards set down by the Vatican etc. If you don't like those standards, if you won't abide by them, then Catholicism isn't your bag. It's the priest's job to be the mouthpiece of his church's morality, and that's what he did.

This doesn't diminish the fact that the guy sounds like a git, but it is kind of a weird thing to find surprising...

Dave147

But most young people who are Catholic don't follow those rules. Many people I know are Catholic and either promiscuous to a certain extent or in a relationship and having sex but certainly not married. So I know they're not following the rules, and they probably don't give a crap either, does that mean they're not Catholic? I think it's in the church's best interest to revamp and maybe reassess some of their ground rules.

PDN

Dave147 wrote: »

I clearly said though, co-habiting without including sex. We assume that if a couple are unmarried and living together then they have sex. But what about just living together, is that seen as a sin? I'm not sure.

I don't believe cohabiting without sex is forbidden by Catholicism at all. Isn't that what monks do? Not that I know any young couples who cohabit without actually having sex - but I guess anything is possible.

I think the best thing for Catholics to do, is pick and choose what they want to follow. It's so outdated it's scary.

A la carte Catholicism is common enough.

PDN as a matter of interest what religion are you a part of?

I'm a Pentecostal, or Evangelical, Christian.

getz

isent it strange that a catholic priest can stand up in a church in ireland and tell you that you are living in sin and are sinfull?.yet soon if you stand up and say the catholic church its self is sinfull, you may be charged with blasphemy,

Rev Hellfire

getz wrote: »

isent it strange that a catholic priest can stand up in a church in ireland and tell you that you are living in sin and are sinfull?.yet soon if you stand up and say the catholic church its self is sinfull, you may be charged with blasphemy,

If you don't like the rules of the catholic church you simply pick another church which matches your beliefs. Its really that simple.

Its not as if they're suddenly springing these 'new' rules on people :rolleyes:

getz

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If you don't like the rules of the catholic church you simply pick another church which matches your beliefs. Its really that simple.

Its not as if they're suddenly springing these 'new' rules on people :rolleyes:

one quote comes to mind;-he who casts the first stone;

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As a Catholic priest in a Catholic church he has every right to teach that church's standards.

kona wrote: »

The priest has every right to say what he wants, if you dont like it...leave.

The priest does not have every right to say what he wants, he must still abide by the law of the land, as that (subsequently acquitted) Swedish "hate" preacher found out. Which is possibly one reason -- amongst several which suggest themselves -- why priests don't lecture their flocks all that often on the moral hazards of homosexuality.

That said, I have to say that the priest's alleged behavior in this case seems to have been nothing more than just silly. A blast from the past.

.

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If you don't like the rules of the catholic church you simply pick another church which matches your beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

So you don't agree with Catholic teaching. That's fine - so don't go to a Catholic Church.

From the point of view of cultural evolution, having individual believers supporting churches (or not) because of how well they match individual views has the long-term effect of evolving churches to mirror the views which individual believers want mirrored. Rather than, say, any specific, fixed version of Truth...

askitnice

grenache wrote: »

In the middle of his sermon, he started to talk about how the church was dealing with recent Ryan report findings on clerical sexual abuse. "Everybody has made mistakes, most will pay for them in this life of the next, nobody is perfect" was his way of explaining it. Then, as if to show the imperfectness of his congregration, he asked "Could all the couples who co-habating but not married, please stand up". "Living in sin is also a crime" he told us.

Contrasting unmarried couples living together to child abusing rapists, that's just disgusting there is no comparison, I see the church or the representatives are still in denial which is what contributed to the extent of the abuse in the first place.. Sick..

getz

robindch wrote: »

The priest does not have every right to say what he wants, he must still abide by the law of the land, as that (subsequently acquitted) Swedish "hate" preacher found out.

Which is possibly one reason -- amongst several which suggest themselves -- why priests don't lecture their flocks all that often on the moral hazards of homosexuality.

it is very hard avoid catholic dogma in the irish republic, as a goverment it is very close to being a secular state,goverments own report 2009, control of education,health, and welfare.as for following the law,since when has it been against the law to be ugly,to be to beautiful,to be backward,to have a baby out of wedlock to be raped,?. the church ran its own prisons, that is proof enough that they think they are above the law in the republic

kelly1

grenache wrote: »

Anyways, our parish priest isn't the most popular of men around, and he certainly will be even less popular after last Sunday week. In the middle of his sermon, he started to talk about how the church was dealing with recent Ryan report findings on clerical sexual abuse. "Everybody has made mistakes, most will pay for them in this life of the next, nobody is perfect" was his way of explaining it. Then, as if to show the imperfectness of his congregration, he asked "Could all the couples who co-habating but not married, please stand up". "Living in sin is also a crime" he told us. :rolleyes: This was followed by a rant about married couples who want to baptise their children but are not mass attendees. At this time, about 5 or 6 people at the back of the church got up and walked out, and i felt like following them.

I think he was right to point out the hypocrisy but asking cohabiting couples to stand up was probably going too far.

Way to many Catholics are far too lax about their faith and there is a terrible lack of awareness of sin. People need a good kick up the ar** now and again.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, it's certainly his business to proclaim Catholic teaching as a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. I don't understand the mindset of those who get offended at that. If I go to a synagogue I expect the rabbi to teach Jewish teaching, if I go to a Baptist church I expect the pastor to teach Baptist teaching, and if I go to a Catholic Church I should expect the priest to teach Catholic teaching.

Entirely true. However doing a spiel about 'those without sin' involving serial child abuse over six decades and co-habiting couples etc is never going to fly. That, I would imagine, is the problem. Question of proportion.

dave147 wrote:

But most young people who are Catholic don't follow those rules. Many people I know are Catholic and either promiscuous to a certain extent or in a relationship and having sex but certainly not married. So I know they're not following the rules, and they probably don't give a crap either, does that mean they're not Catholic?.

They're still considered catholic, but in theory shouldn't receive communion, as far as I recall. I forget the exact term.

aoibhebree

Dave147 wrote: »

I think it's in the church's best interest to revamp and maybe reassess some of their ground rules.

But then they wouldn't be the Catholic Church any more! Plenty of Catholics in the past have been dissatisfied with the church's teaching and have gone on to form other Christian religions. If people don't agree with Catholic beliefs, fine, but they shouldn't be surprised to go to a Catholic church and hear the priest encouraging them to live by its teachings.

toiletduck

Whilst he was just preaching Catholic teaching, mention the co-habitating couples in the same breath as the Ryan report seems to suggest that both are equivalent (sin wise or whatever). What was he thinking?! I doubt that was his intention, probably just age old diversion tactics which we see from politicians all the time.

Dades

Nodin wrote: »

Entirely true. However doing a spiel about 'those without sin' involving serial child abuse over six decades and co-habiting couples etc is never going to fly. That, I would imagine, is the problem. Question of proportion.

That's exactly the problem.

Malari

aoibhebree wrote: »

If people don't agree with Catholic beliefs, fine, but they shouldn't be surprised to go to a Catholic church and hear the priest encouraging them to live by its teachings.

I agree with the this because it seems a lot of people who call themselves catholics are constantly surprised at what the definition of what a catholic is.

At the same time, encouraging the congregation to live by the teachings and shaming them into are completely different things. Not a very forgiving, loving attitude I would have thought.

peakpilgrim

grenache wrote: »

I recently attended my local parish church in West Limerick for the first time in god knows how long. It was my grandmother's anniversary mass so i wanted to go for it, even though i'm not a mass goer anymore.

Anyways, our parish priest isn't the most popular of men around, and he certainly will be even less popular after last Sunday week. In the middle of his sermon, he started to talk about how the church was dealing with recent Ryan report findings on clerical sexual abuse. "Everybody has made mistakes, most will pay for them in this life of the next, nobody is perfect" was his way of explaining it. Then, as if to show the imperfectness of his congregration, he asked "Could all the couples who co-habating but not married, please stand up". "Living in sin is also a crime" he told us. :rolleyes: This was followed by a rant about married couples who want to baptise their children but are not mass attendees. At this time, about 5 or 6 people at the back of the church got up and walked out, and i felt like following them.

It was like something from the 1930s, a parish priest thinking he has the authority to say what he likes no matter how immoral or hurtful his comments are. What business is it of his if couples choose to live together?? In this day and age, unmarried co-habiting couples are ten a penny. And asking them to "please stand up", as if trying to shame them or something. I really couldn't believe my ears, the man had some nerve. I plan to write to the Bishop of Limerick to voice my anger at this priest's behaviour, he clearly has some major issues going on.

The Priest was totally wrong in the way he went about this.

It is the Policy of The Church that co-habiting is wrong; but its also the policy of The Church that God is forgiving.

Galvasean

Seems like a very childish thing for a man of power to do. While he is certainly entitled to state his (and indeed his church's) stance on the issue of co-habitation/sex before marriage, making the people stand up to be shamed is fairly petty, especially when in the context of defending what was essentially a paedophile ring.

peakpilgrim

getz wrote: »

isent it strange that a catholic priest can stand up in a church in ireland and tell you that you are living in sin and are sinfull?.yet soon if you stand up and say the catholic church its self is sinfull, you may be charged with blasphemy,

What do you mean when you say 'The Catholic Church is sinful'; exactly?

kelly1

peakpilgrim wrote: »

It is the Policy of The Church that co-habiting is wrong; but its also the policy of The Church that God is forgiving.

God is forgiving to those who repent. You can't continue in sin and expect forgiveness.

peakpilgrim

getz wrote: »

it is very hard avoid catholic dogma in the irish republic, as a goverment it is very close to being a secular state,goverments own report 2009, control of education,health, and welfare.as for following the law,since when has it been against the law to be ugly,to be to beautiful,to be backward,to have a baby out of wedlock to be raped,?. the church ran its own prisons, that is proof enough that they think they are above the law in the republic

The church ran Institutions in the past where disgusting things happened; there is no doubt about that.

The acts, and the eventual cover-ups were carried out by criminals who should be in prison.

These acts and the cover-ups were never the policy of The Church.

Latchy

grenache wrote: »

I
Anyways, our parish priest isn't the most popular of men around, and he certainly will be even less popular after last Sunday week. In the middle of his sermon, he started to talk about how the church was dealing with recent Ryan report findings on clerical sexual abuse. "Everybody has made mistakes, most will pay for them in this life of the next, nobody is perfect" was his way of explaining it. Then, as if to show the imperfectness of his congregration, he asked "Could all the couples who co-habating but not married, please stand up". "Living in sin is also a crime" he told us. :rolleyes: This was followed by a rant about married couples who want to baptise their children but are not mass attendees. At this time, about 5 or 6 people at the back of the church got up and walked out, and i felt like following them.

Sounds to me like the man ( priest) was trying to exercise his power over the mass's and if anybody actually stood up ( did any ? ) then he will have proven a point of sorts and that is ' we still want some control in your lives '' ie, we speak - you jump .

oldyouth

I am Catholic but won't listen to those fools until they grasp reality and put their own house in order.

Of course priests can spout their own doctrine in their own churches but they cannot call living in sin a crime and put it on a par with what their own members have inflicted on so many.

I could go on but I'll leave it at that for the minute

homer911

peakpilgrim wrote: »

These acts and the cover-ups were never the policy of The Church.

Define what you mean by "The Church" because there does seem to have been a policy of cover ups, at all levels in the Catholic Church in Ireland

peakpilgrim

oldyouth wrote: »

I am Catholic but won't listen to those fools until they grasp reality and put their own house in order.

Of course priests can spout their own doctrine in their own churches but they cannot call living in sin a crime and put it on a par with what their own members have inflicted on so many.

I could go on but I'll leave it at that for the minute

'...what a small minority of criminals, posing as priests, have inflicted...'

peakpilgrim

homer911 wrote: »

Define what you mean by "The Church" because there does seem to have been a policy of cover ups, at all levels in the Catholic Church in Ireland

See the thread on: 'The Church's Responsibility in Child Abuse Cases.'

There have been cover-ups by some Bishops, who should be in prison, along with the paedophiles. They do not represent the whole Church. The rest is just media and sensationalist, hype which too many people are listening to.

PDN

peakpilgrim wrote: »

'...what a small minority of criminals, posing as priests, have inflicted...'

I'm pretty sure that the RC Church's official position is that they were genuine priests.

If moral unworthiness rendered an individual's priesthood invalid then the RC Church's whole claim of legitimacy and primacy (apostolic succession) would dissolve, given that so many Popes, Bishops etc throughout history were guilty of various crimes much worse than those detailed in the Ryan Report.

peakpilgrim

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the RC Church's official position is that they were genuine priests.

If moral unworthiness rendered an individual's priesthood invalid then the RC Church's whole claim of legitimacy and primacy (apostolic succession) would dissolve, given that so many Popes, Bishops etc throughout history were guilty of various crimes much worse than those detailed in the Ryan Report.

I know you think that PDN; I disagree with you ( Surprise! Surprise! )

Malari

peakpilgrim wrote: »

'...what a small minority of criminals, posing as priests, have inflicted...'

They were priests. Whether they were using it as a cover for their criminal activities or they were coerced into the priesthood by society and their families is irrelevant.

And they may have been a small minority actually doing it, but the knowledge that it was done was widespread and concealed and protected.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the RC Church's official position is that they were genuine priests.

If moral unworthiness rendered an individual's priesthood invalid then the RC Church's whole claim of legitimacy and primacy (apostolic succession) would dissolve, given that so many Popes, Bishops etc throughout history were guilty of various crimes much worse than those detailed in the Ryan Report.

Luckily the authority of a priest/bishop/pope doesn't depend on his impeccability! Of course his sinfulness will limit the fruits he can produce.

peakpilgrim

Malari wrote: »

They were priests. Whether they were using it as a cover for their criminal activities or they were coerced into the priesthood by society and their families is irrelevant.

And they may have been a small minority actually doing it, but the knowledge that it was done was widespread and concealed and protected.

I disagree; thats a common misrepresentation fueled by media and sensationalist hype.

How can you possibly describe these criminals as priests. These people were paedophiles who were prepared to act the part of priests to get into positions where they could abuse children.

We see the same paedophiles join Childrens Homes as care-workers, for the same reasons.

We see the same paedophiles join in Childrens Sports Societies, for the same reasons.

Does that mean that all care-workers and people who help out with childrens sports are potential paedophiles? Of course not?

The administrators of The Church were duped by these criminals; some even joined in the cover-up and were just as guilty; but is ludicrous hype to extend that to the whole Church.

briano.de.rhino

Religions are ideologies comprising hundreds, even thousands of seperate ideas. It is dangerous to take in ideologies. Humans should take each idea seperately on its own merits as your conciousness judges it a worthy idea or not, at that moment in time. That is all you need do. There are many fantastic ideas in Christianity.....if you can see past the rape and genocide and bigotry and guilt. I am glad people got up and left. Its not like years ago when that priests word would have been almighty. I hope it doesnt turn those people to one side or the other with regards to the issue. There is many shades of grey.

Malari

peakpilgrim wrote: »

I disagree; thats a common misrepresentation fueled by media and sensationalist hype.

How can you possibly describe these criminals as priests. These people were paedophiles who were prepared to act the part of priests to get into positions where they could abuse children.

We see the same paedophiles join Childrens Homes as care-workers, for the same reasons.

We see the same paedophiles join in Childrens Sports Societies, for the same reasons.

Does that mean that all care-workers and people who help out with childrens sports are potential paedophiles? Of course not?

The administrators of The Church were duped by these criminals; some even joined in the cover-up and were just as guilty; but is ludicrous hype to extend that to the whole Church.

I don't think you can say that fairly about all the people involved in this. Yes, I accept that some people engineer themselves into a position of trust in situations where children are involved, but you can't deny that they were priests. They were ordained and working as priests. There's no mental or emotional testing to find out if they actually believe it!

There's buggery in prisons in an all male environment but the people who perform these acts aren't homosexuals committing crimes to get into that situation. That's ridiculous.

Priests often found themselves in a job they didn't want because the eldest son always goes to the seminary, or whatever and they abused children in a frustrated, opportunistic way.

peakpilgrim

Malari wrote: »

I don't think you can say that fairly about all the people involved in this. Yes, I accept that some people engineer themselves into a position of trust in situations where children are involved, but you can't deny that they were priests. They were ordained and working as priests. There's no mental or emotional testing to find out if they actually believe it!

There's buggery in prisons in an all male environment but the people who perform these acts aren't homosexuals committing crimes to get into that situation. That's ridiculous.

Priests often found themselves in a job they didn't want because the eldest son always goes to the seminary, or whatever and they abused children in a frustrated, opportunistic way.

Yes; some of them may have started out with good intentions but were overtaken by their sick drives; some may have been coerced into the priesthood; that doesn't make them any more, or less, guilty of their criminal acts; that just puts them in the same boat as some of the Bishops who covered it up.

Terra

You said that the priest said that "Living in sin is also a crime".

How is living with someone a crime ?

Might be not what being a Catholic stands for but can't see how its a crime.

People are living together for numerous reasons, I think one of the biggest is that it's just too much of a rip off to get married in this country.

Where is the moral authority there in forking out thousands for a mere blessing and title.

Who can afford to get married in this day and age...

Also I believe that couples have the power to marry themselves, if you promise yourself to another person...this essentially what marriage is.

I promise myself to my girlfriend, why do I need a priest and pay so much for a marriage to confirm that?

Malari

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Yes; some of them may have started out with good intentions but were overtaken by their sick drives; some may have been coerced into the priesthood; that doesn't make them any more, or less, guilty of their criminal acts; that just puts them in the same boat as some of the Bishops who covered it up.

Well, yeah, that's my point. But you seemed to be saying they were criminals, not priests, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

Malari

Terra wrote: »

You said that the priest said that "Living in sin is also a crime".

How is living with someone a crime ?

Might be not what being a Catholic stands for but can't see how its a crime.

People are living together for numerous reasons, I think one of the biggest is that it's just too much of a rip off to get married in this country.

Where is the moral authority there in forking out thousands for a mere blessing and title.

Who can afford to get married in this day and age...

Also I believe that couples have the power to marry themselves, if you promise yourself to another person...this essentially what marriage is.

I promise myself to my girlfriend, why do I need a priest and pay so much for a marriage to confirm that?

Presumably he meant a crime "in the eyes of the church"? As long as you're not catholic and going along to hear the rantings of this bigot, thinly veiled as moral teachings of the catholic church then I wouldn't worry about being rounded up for the crime of co-habiting.

peakpilgrim

Malari wrote: »

Well, yeah, that's my point. But you seemed to be saying they were criminals, not priests, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

I think that once they actively harm a child, or actively engage in the cover-up of such acts, they become criminals and they cease to become priests in any real sense; if they ever were.