Pope compares child abuse to women becoming priests!!!WTF

Wetbench4

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

I was born a catholic but now i'm not so sure. This pr1ck should be hanged by the balls off the roof of the vatican!!

El Weirdo

Wetbench4 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

I was born a catholic but now i'm not so sure. This pr1ck should be hanged by the balls off the roof of the vatican!!

You're not so sure you were born?

Biggins

I feel genuinely sorry for the very decent members of the catholic faith.
They are being let down by Rome heads by this totally stupid far out of touch announcement.
Its totally stupid to put female priests on the same par as child abusers - absolutely stupid.

The pope and org is only showing the deeper levels of stupidity they can extend themselves down to.

cian1500ww

Biggins wrote: »

I feel genuinely sorry for the very decent members of the catholic faith.
They are being let down by Rome heads by this totally stupid far out of touch announcement.

Meh, same **** different flies :P

Kasabian

* Leaves inevitable catholic church bashing thread.

seamus

Nail #15485994 in the Catholic coffin (it's a big coffin, lots of bodies).

I'm actually optimistic about a collapse of the RC Church within my lifetime. Thank you Ratzinger.

Notorious97

This is a joke! I havent a clue what goes on in Rome anymore, i have strong enough beliefs and i am a catholic, but i don’t know, they are making a mockery out of anybody who actually takes the time to believe, and they wonder why people lose faith and stop attending Mass.

The RCC is getting more and more outdated by the minute, the Church of England is ordaining female bishops, Catholic priests should be allowed marry as the numbers applying probably would increase, and also female priests should be allowed. I cant believe they lumped this into the same bracket as crimes against children!

moonpurple

what percentage of the planets population are roman catholics?

0.5%?

who could care less what these men said yesterday, :pac:

Hasmunch

It states
"The new rules, which have been sent to bishops around the world, apply equally to Catholic women who agree to a ceremony of ordination and to the bishop who conducts it. Both would be excommunicated."

Very few priests in Ireland have been excomunicated for clerical sex abuse of minors.

Catholic church should be coming pro-active towards getting people to church. Its a pity they had to come out and do this.

Abrasax

moonpurple wrote: »

what percentage of the planets population are roman catholics?

0.5%?

There's about 1.1 billion Catholics or roughly 16% according to one BBC report I just looked at.

Morlar

Here is the article no one seems to have actually read . . . .

Vatican makes attempted ordination of women a grave crime

Revised Catholic rules put female ordination in same category of crime under church law as clerical sex abuse of minors
The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.

The new rules, which have been sent to bishops around the world, apply equally to Catholic women who agree to a ceremony of ordination and to the bishop who conducts it. Both would be excommunicated. Since the Vatican does not accept that women can become priests, it does not recognise the outcome of any such ceremony.

The latest move, which appeared to bar and bolt the door to Catholic women priests, came at a time when the Church of England moved in the opposite direction, to a step closer to the ordination of female bishops.

The Vatican's reclassification of attempted female ordination was part of a revision of a 2001 decree, the main purpose of which was to tighten up the rules on sex abuse by priests in reaction to the scandals that have been sweeping through the church since January. The most important change is to extend the period during which a clergyman can be tried by a church court from 10 to 20 years, dating from the 18th birthday of his victim.

The new rules introduce speedier procedures for dealing with the most urgent and serious cases; allowed for lay people to form part of church tribunals that judge such cases; put abuse of the mentally disabled on a level with that of minors, and introduced a new crime of paedophile pornography.

The pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, stressed that the changes applied solely to canon, or church, law. They had no bearing on whether suspected offenders should be reported to the civil authorities.

He said that issue had already been dealt with earlier this year in instructions making it clear to bishops that they must report cases promptly.

The Vatican was working on further instructions "so that the directives it issues on the subject of sexual abuse of minors, either by the clergy or institutions connected with the church, may be increasingly rigorous, coherent and effective," he said.

tooth*grinder

I've always found it funny that people still think the Vatican has the remotest thing to do with god and or Jesus - seriously, from what they teach you about Jesus, do they sound like the kind of people he'd have anything to do with?
Money grabbing, exploitative, abusive, power hungry muppets. They are the very embodiment of with faith is a beautiful thing but religion is its evil malevolent brother.

SuperGrover

Wetbench4 wrote: »

I was born a catholic

No you weren't.

socio

Wow, who'd have thought the RCC could get any more backward and incestuous than they already are. Amazing stuff. Really though there shouldn't be any need for RCC "law". State laws should guarantee the safety of children, regardless of what particular organisation the pervert belongs to.

Biggins

The first paragraph of The New York Times article yesterday:

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican issued revisions to its internal laws on Thursday making it easier to discipline sex-abuser priests, but caused confusion by also stating that ordaining women as priests was as grave an offense as pedophilia.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16vatican.html?_r=2&hp

Goes on to say further down:

But what astonished many Catholics was the inclusion of the attempt to ordain women in a list of the “more grave delicts,” or offenses, which included pedophilia, as well as heresy, apostasy and schism. The issue, some critics said, was less the ordination of women, which is not discussed seriously inside the church hierarchy, but the Vatican’s suggestion that pedophilia is a comparable crime in a document billed a response to the sexual abuse crisis.

“It is very irritating that they put the increased severity in punishment for abuse and women’s ordination at the same level,” said Christian Weisner, the spokesman for “We Are Church,” a liberal Catholic reform movement founded in 1996 in response to a high-profile sexual abuse case in Austria. “It tells us that the church still understands itself as an environment dominated by men.”

Oink

"...during which a clergyman can be tried by a church court...."


Huh... What? ... Church what now? :mad:

Have the muppets ever heard of a court of law ????

(EDIT: ... If they are talking about crimes obviously, no religious sins/disobedience etc.)

moonpurple

OP you were not born a catholic..


you were born in sin, based on a sinful act of copulation, you were cleaned up at babttism and put one mudda fuggin foot wrong
and fat tony ooops sorry the holy church may not be able to protect you from the ETERNal fires of hell
:eek:



pay
pray
obey

but mostly...pay:pac:

CortezTheKiller

Aren't there legal implications of Sexual Discrimination?? Seemingly doesn't apply to the church.

boodlesdoodles

The Catholic church is a wonderful example of just how fecked up the world is. You ordain a woman priest: instant excommunication. You abuse a child: you get defrocked and we don't have to tell the civil courts about you! Crazy stuff for sure.

You'd think they'd just shut the fuk up for a few years.. I'm glad they keep digging the hole deeper and deeper tho so it will die out in Ireland by the time I get old.

Powerhouse

Wetbench4 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

I was born a catholic but now i'm not so sure. This pr1ck should be hanged by the balls off the roof of the vatican!!

Where does it compare the two things?

From what I understand they are under the same broad category in canon law in the way that being convicted of breaking a red traffic light in court is a criminal offence and murdering someone is a criminal offence. But that is more a matter of category than comparison.

Based on reading the statement the 'comparison' appears to me to be a malelovent interpretation by others rather than a direct statement by the church. And in fairness the mindlessness of most of the replies shows the appetite for same.

CortezTheKiller

Powerhouse wrote: »

Where does it compare the two things?

From what I understand they are under the same broad category in canon law in the way that being convicted of breaking a red traffic light in court is a criminal offence and murdering someone is a criminal offence. But that is more a matter of category than comparison.

Based on reading the statement the 'comparison' appears to me to be a malelovent interpretation by others rather than a direct statement by the church. And in fairness the mindlessness of most of the replies shows the appetite for same.

Breaking a Red Light & Murdering someone aren't in the same category of criminal offence though.

Anthony Walsh

I have quite a few female RC friends and i love to know what there take on all of this is. Fair enough if you believe in Jesus and God and all the rest but to follow these príck is just stupid. If God is up there(I'm not saying he is or isn't) he is hardly going to send you to hell for not going to church every week because these backwards fools are in charge

Biggins

Powerhouse wrote: »

Where does it compare the two things?

From what I understand they are under the same broad category in canon law in the way that being convicted of breaking a red traffic light in court is a criminal offence and murdering someone is a criminal offence. But that is more a matter of category than comparison.

Based on reading the statement the 'comparison' appears to me to be a malevolent interpretation by others rather than a direct statement by the church. And in fairness the mindlessness of most of the replies shows the appetite for same.

Thats your understanding and your entitled to it equally.

To others, to equate in the same edict and new rules that female priests are in the same category of church crime as perverts, says something very clear by their understanding and reading of perhaps same announcement.

Sanjuro

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd think they'd just shut the fuk up for a few years.. I'm glad they keep digging the hole deeper and deeper tho so it will die out in Ireland by the time I get old.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I think there are enough Catholics in this country for the church to last another couple of generations. Ireland will be one of the last countries to fall, despite what went on here. There are plenty of young people still dedicated to the church. And if one of my exes is anything to go by, they'll be die-hards. She was always trying to reconnect me with the church despite my total and complete lack of belief.

Powerhouse

CortezTheKiller wrote: »

Breaking a Red Light & Murdering someone aren't in the same category of criminal offence though.

Thank you, that's precisely my point. Even though they are both criminal offences they are dealt with differently and are not comparable other than in the loosest nominal sense. I know squat about canon law but it seems reasonable to suggest that these things merely being in the same broad category does not necessarily imply a comparison.

But like I said perhaps there was direct comparison made and I missed it.

CortezTheKiller

Powerhouse wrote: »

Thank you, that's precisely my point. Even though they are both criminal offences they are dealt with differently and are not comparable other than in the loosest nominal sense. I know squat about canon law but it seems reasonable to suggest that these things merely being in the same broad category does not necessarily imply a comparison.

But like I said perhaps there was direct comparison made and I missed it.

The article says that they are putting Female Ordination & Clerical Sex Abuse in the same category of crime under church law though.

Brendog

OH Benedict!!


what will you get up to next :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Powerhouse wrote: »

Thank you, that's precisely my point. Even though they are both criminal offences they are dealt with differently and are not comparable other than in the loosest nominal sense. I know squat about canon law but it seems reasonable to suggest that these things merely being in the same broad category does not necessarily imply a comparison.

But like I said perhaps there was direct comparison made and I missed it.

The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.

That would suggest the vatican wish the attempted ordination of women and clerical sex abuse of minors to be comparable crimes, no?

Powerhouse

Biggins wrote: »

Thats your understanding and your entitled to it equally.

To others, to equate in the same edict and new rules that female priests are in the same category of church crime as perverts, says something very clear by their understanding and reading of perhaps same announcement.

I think it's very clear only to those who are predisposed to be offended by by any report about the church. As per the example I gave the categorisation might relate to the method of dealing with it under canon law rather than the actual nature of the breach of law. The article by John Hooper does not amplify this in any way, but seems to me to be seeking to imply a comparison without providing a context. There might well be a reason for that lack of context - i.e. the dilution of a good story, or perhaps to take the benign interpretation he had just reached his word count limit. But that is just a rational/sceptical view of an article which has little in it in my view.

Unshelved

Time for Tim Minchin's Pope Song -
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfHRDfut2Vx0

WARNING : VERY OFFENSIVE AND NSFW!!!!!

(also very funny)

owenc

El Weirdo wrote: »

You're not so sure you were born?

Hes not sure if he wants to stay one!:mad:

owenc

Biggins wrote: »

I feel genuinely sorry for the very decent members of the catholic faith.
They are being let down by Rome heads by this totally stupid far out of touch announcement.
Its totally stupid to put female priests on the same par as child abusers - absolutely stupid.

The pope and org is only showing the deeper levels of stupidity they can extend themselves down to.

Its a discrace that one man should be aloud to control the church, they should be doing it the way the church of england is doing it. Sure they let woman be bishops!

owenc

seamus wrote: »

Nail #15485994 in the Catholic coffin (it's a big coffin, lots of bodies).

I'm actually optimistic about a collapse of the RC Church within my lifetime. Thank you Ratzinger.

You know protestants can have as much children, so leave catholic people alone and stop insulting them.

owenc

Morlar wrote: »

Here is the article no one seems to have actually read . . . .

Vatican makes attempted ordination of women a grave crime

Revised Catholic rules put female ordination in same category of crime under church law as clerical sex abuse of minors
The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.

The new rules, which have been sent to bishops around the world, apply equally to Catholic women who agree to a ceremony of ordination and to the bishop who conducts it. Both would be excommunicated. Since the Vatican does not accept that women can become priests, it does not recognise the outcome of any such ceremony.

The latest move, which appeared to bar and bolt the door to Catholic women priests, came at a time when the Church of England moved in the opposite direction, to a step closer to the ordination of female bishops.

The Vatican's reclassification of attempted female ordination was part of a revision of a 2001 decree, the main purpose of which was to tighten up the rules on sex abuse by priests in reaction to the scandals that have been sweeping through the church since January. The most important change is to extend the period during which a clergyman can be tried by a church court from 10 to 20 years, dating from the 18th birthday of his victim.

The new rules introduce speedier procedures for dealing with the most urgent and serious cases; allowed for lay people to form part of church tribunals that judge such cases; put abuse of the mentally disabled on a level with that of minors, and introduced a new crime of paedophile pornography.

The pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, stressed that the changes applied solely to canon, or church, law. They had no bearing on whether suspected offenders should be reported to the civil authorities.

He said that issue had already been dealt with earlier this year in instructions making it clear to bishops that they must report cases promptly.

The Vatican was working on further instructions "so that the directives it issues on the subject of sexual abuse of minors, either by the clergy or institutions connected with the church, may be increasingly rigorous, coherent and effective," he said.

So catholic woman can be bishops now!? Hmm let me go check, like that is true!

Powerhouse

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That would suggest the vatican wish the attempted ordination of women and clerical sex abuse of minors to be comparable crimes, no?

"no?"

I think "don't know" would be a better response.

I simply don't have the knowledge of canon law to be able to comment on that either way. If the journalist is correct, then they appear to be nominally in the same cateogory. Whether than means they are treated exactly the same at the ultimate stages in canon law and are therefore comparable I'm not sure. I would be concerned if they were. But what is contained in the report is neither here nor there really as it says little and to be appears a rather lazy report.

The problem here is that this is a second hand report/interpretation by a journalist who is trained to write an eye-catching opening line and is justifed in doing so by the report's appearance here and presumably elsewhere. Unfortunately it lacks the context required to make the leap people here are making.

owenc

moonpurple wrote: »

OP you were not born a catholic..


you were born in sin, based on a sinful act of copulation, you were cleaned up at babttism and put one mudda fuggin foot wrong
and fat tony ooops sorry the holy church may not be able to protect you from the ETERNal fires of hell
:eek:



pay
pray
obey

but mostly...pay:pac:

ok...:rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

Good old benny, if ever there was a man with his finger on the pulse, surely pope benny is that man!

owenc

Someone tell me the truth are they letting woman be bishops or not?

syklops

Its not a big thing really. All it means is if a woman is ordained all she has to do is say sorry. Just like all the priests who abused kids, all they had to do was apologize to the bishop and they're grand.

owenc

owenc wrote: »

Its a discrace that one man should be aloud to control the church,

Better he does it aloud than quietly, that way we all know how stupid it sounds

Biggins

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think it's very clear only to those who are predisposed to be offended by by any report about the church. As per the example I gave the categorisation might relate to the method of dealing with it under canon law rather than the actual nature of the breach of law. The article by John Hooper does not amplify this in any way, but seems to me to be seeking to imply a comparison without providing a context. There might well be a reason for that lack of context - i.e. the dilution of a good story, or perhaps to take the benign interpretation he had just reached his word count limit. But that is just a rational/sceptical view of an article which has little in it in my view.

It should be pointed out that a "rational/sceptical view" (as you put it) is shared then by many people who have some to the same conclusion and they have said so from European news articles to American ones such as the New York Times.
Not all are out out to seek an excuse to "have a go" at the Rome org but only wish to highlight out something they consider to be of contention.

owenc

bluewolf wrote: »

Better he does it aloud than quietly, that way we all know how stupid it sounds

It should be a group of people controlling it, and i thought god was the head of a church not him, thats kinda going against god as he says you aren't ment to worship anyone else?

CortezTheKiller

Powerhouse wrote: »

"no?"

I think "don't know" would be a better response.

I simply don't have the knowledge of canon law to be able to comment on that either way. If the journalist is correct, then they appear to be nominally in the same cateogory. Whether than means they are treated exactly the same at the ultimate stages in canon law and are therefore comparable I'm not sure. I would be concerned if they were. But what is contained in the report is neither here nor there really as it says little and to be appears a rather lazy report.

The problem here is that this is a second hand report/interpretation by a journalist who is trained to write an eye-catching opening line and is justifed in doing so by the report's appearance here and presumably elsewhere. Unfortunately it lacks the context required to make the leap people here are making.

Good point, Powerhouse. Problem is probably more to do with the tabloid type journalism than the Vatican annoucement itself!

After a quick web search came across a more level-headed (I think) report of the situation.
http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0716/1224274821677.html?via=news

Sanjuro

Sanjuro wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I think there are enough Catholics in this country for the church to last another couple of generations. Ireland will be one of the last countries to fall, despite what went on here. There are plenty of young people still dedicated to the church. And if one of my exes is anything to go by, they'll be die-hards. She was always trying to reconnect me with the church despite my total and complete lack of belief.

Well I think the lack of ordained priests will have a big impact.. Hopefully, a complete loss of influence will follow then over the years.

Ickle Magoo

Powerhouse wrote: »

"no?"

I think "don't know" would be a better response.

I simply don't have the knowledge of canon law to be able to comment on that either way. If the journalist is correct, then they appear to be nominally in the same cateogory. Whether than means they are treated exactly the same at the ultimate stages in canon law and are therefore comparable I'm not sure. I would be concerned if they were. But what is contained in the report is neither here nor there really as it says little and to be appears a rather lazy report.

The problem here is that this is a second hand report/interpretation by a journalist who is trained to write an eye-catching opening line and is justifed in doing so by the report's appearance here and presumably elsewhere. Unfortunately it lacks the context required to make the leap people here are making.

Either the RCC are making "attempts to ordain women priests" and the clerical abuse of minors comparable crimes or they aren't...dressing it up with confuzzlement about whether they would treated EXACTLY the same at the ultimate stages of cannon law or not is missing the point, quite deliberately I assume. One "crime" is allowing half the population to represent the church, the other is the now notoriously endemic abuse of children by it's members ffs - they shouldn't be anywhere near the same category of gravitas or considered equal crimes.

Biggins

Well I was only going by what The New York Times wrote and The Washington Post!
They must be rag newspapers! :rolleyes:

The Washington Post:

The Vatican did, however, institute a policy that angered women's groups: a provision that labels any attempt to ordain women as a grave crime, the same words used to describe sex abuse. Some Catholic women's rights activists accused the Vatican of equating the ordination of a woman to the molestation of children.

"The Vatican's decision to list women's ordination in the same category as paedophiles and rapists is appalling, offensive, and a wake-up call for all Catholics around the world," said Erin Saiz Hanna of the Women's Ordination Conference in a statement. "The idea that a woman seeking to spread the message of God somehow 'defiles' the Eucharist reveals an antiquated, backwards Church that still views women as 'unclean' and unholy."

"They didn't really move the ball forward with these rules. Many of us would have liked to see zero tolerance made into a universal law," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a scholar at Georgetown University. "But not only did that not happen, the one thing they did do was to lump in the ordination of women in with the sex abuse issue, which just made it a disaster. It shows how tone-deaf the Vatican is on PR."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071501453.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

The New York Times Article is mentioned and linked above but some have missed or ignored it.

owenc

owenc wrote: »

Someone tell me the truth are they letting woman be bishops or not?

You've posted an awful lot in this thread without even reading the article..

No they're not allowed to get ordained. The bishop and woman get excommunicated instead because obviously they deserve hell if they try.

Edit. Unless you're talking about church of england whereby my post is pointless.

Pal

moonpurple wrote: »

what percentage of the planets population are roman catholics?

0.5%?

:

about 20%

owenc

Deleted User wrote: »

You've posted an awful lot in this thread without even reading the article..

No they're not allowed to get ordained. The bishop and woman get excommunicated instead because obviously they deserve hell if they try.

Edit. Unless you're talking about church of england whereby my post is pointless.

WHAT! ugh so they aren't doing that, i thought that church was growing up but obviously not, the way them links that people were posting were going on they were letting woman be bishops but they aren't even considering it! Oh how i hate that church (no offence like.)

sensibleken

Hail Satan!