Female ordination on par with clerical sex abuse

panda100

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.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-declares-womens-ordination-grave-crime

I thought this warranted its on thread on The LL considering how much the RC church and the state are intertwined in this country.

How can women's active involvement in the church be a considered one of the churchs grave sins?

WindSock

Not sure where it says the Vatican actually said it is an offence on par with child sex abuse. Do they both involve the same punishment? I read it that the woman and Bishop would only be excommunicated, whereas the actions of the Priests are only covered up. Therefore women are worse, perhaps...

I said in the AH thread: If the church had started to ordain women in response recent scandals then it means they are holding their hands up to all of the abuses of the past and taking full responsability for them. I don't think they are willing to do that. They are trying to distance themselves from those 'few bad apples' rather than encourage thought that the culture of the patriarchial system of the vatican is greatly flawed.

Either way, I am happy to stand back and watch Rome burn itself to the ground. Go on ye Goths!

Wibbs

Mad. I mean how out of touch are these people? :eek: Hell they're out of touch with the early church and with the one they claim they represent too. That stuff started way back. More a Roman notion than anything. Jesus was unusual for a Jew in that he dealt with and appeared to respect women. Some of the earliest missionaries were women and well respected and powerful ones too. In the early Irish church women even ran monasteries which did not go down well with the roman lot. PR disaster for an organisation that really cant afford too many more. And they compared it to kiddie fiddling. Jesus you could not make this stuff up. :rolleyes:

Nevyn

There was peter and paul but there was also martha and mary,
frankly they are worried that with the decline in numbers of priest that bishops may go rogue like the did in south america where there are married catholic priests and bishops.

I think they are bolting doors long after the horses have bolted and most catholics will ignore it and go about attending mass in thier local parish and ignore rome.

Wibbs

Well when a previously catholic state like Ireland(and we were a catholic state) has to import clergy from Africa and eastern Europe they are in trouble.

Blackhorse Slim

I don't see how heresy and schism (whatever that is) can be compared to clerical child sex abuse either.

panda100

WindSock wrote: »

Not sure where it says the Vatican actually said it is an offence on par with child sex abuse. Do they both involve the same punishment? I read it that the woman and Bishop would only be excommunicated, whereas the actions of the Priests are only covered up. Therefore women are worse, perhaps...

Yes perhaps!
I don't think any of the priests involved with child sexual abuse scandals were excommunicated, but Im open to correction?

The sick thing about all of this is its part of the churchs master plan to ensure clerical abuse doesn't happen again.
So the attempt, not even the full ordination, just the attempt of ordaining a women a priest is part of the churchs plan to stop priests raping young children?

Im sure there is lots of RC women that write on the LL, and my post does not mean to cause offence to your beliefs.
But how can any women respect or acknowledge such mysoginistic behaviours from their church?

WindSock

I don't care for the inner workings of the church, but for arguments sake I don't think ordaining female priests alone is going to make the childers any safer. Sure look at what some of the nuns did.

I just think any radical act now made by the church means they are holding their hands up to near 2k years of a wrongly implemented system and would work toward undermining all of its teachings moral superiority over its followers. Still completely counterproductive of them either way.

Ickle Magoo

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't see how heresy and schism (whatever that is) can be compared to clerical child sex abuse either.

heresy is trying to change dogma, schism is trying to create a break-away sect. Basically anything to do with trying to bring down or reduce the power of the church is akin to letting women become priests and priests raping children. I don't know why anyone is surprised, it's exactly that mindset that led to the RCC covering up the abuses and moving priests around - them and their power wielding is more important than any poor minion that comes in contact with them. Same old.

Smallbit

"Sorry ladies, you can't join our Paedophile Club"

Boo hoo. Fair enough, I am an atheist, but that's essentially the significance of the Vatican's decision right there.

gbee

Thaedydal wrote: »

There was peter and paul but there was also martha and mary, .

Now, we don't need a lesson in how Martha and Mary were treated in the old days, they were effectively slaves, owned by their men ~ that was the way it was.

The Catholic Church is a men's organisation, it started as such and is still to this day.

According to some scholars, Peter's Church anyway is NOT the Holy Roman Catholic Church, this church was set up by the dying embers of Western Roman Empire for Rome's elite to shelter in and keep power, despite the fall of the Roman Political empire.

2,000 years ago women led very different lives, one story says that Joseph had to flee with his pregnant betrothed because local law obliged him to stone her to death [even if it had been he who had made her pregnant and not an angel] and both were under the death penalty [by public stoning] as he had not complied ~ he fled with the Mother of Christ ~

I think the Catholic Church is living up to it ancient traditions ~ let it to them, IMO, find the teachings of Christ and be your own church.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I guess from a Catholic point of view ordaining a woman would be one of the gravest sins. But good grief saying it is as bad as child abuse shows how out of touch they are with reality and basic PR guidelines.

As Windsock was saying, happy to watch them burn themselves down

Wibbs

gbee wrote: »

Now, we don't need a lesson in how Martha and Mary were treated in the old days, they were effectively slaves, owned by their men ~ that was the way it was.

Yes but like I said in at least this way Jesus and the early christians were notably more equal. Women preached and converted and were early leaders in the church.

The Catholic Church is a men's organisation, it started as such and is still to this day.

Yep. Much like Rome itself was and they just grafted the church onto it. They even broke down the ranks in a military vein.

According to some scholars, Peter's Church anyway is NOT the Holy Roman Catholic Church, this church was set up by the dying embers of Western Roman Empire for Rome's elite to shelter in and keep power, despite the fall of the Roman Political empire.

Not quite. The timescale is slightly off. Rome peaked in the 2nd century, but it was doing alright for itself nearly 100 yrs later when Constantine went all christian. Rome's elite had needed precious little shelter for the guts of 1000 years before and didnt need it then. Indeed from a social point of view christianity, even roman christianity could have well been deleterious to the status quo. Some have blamed its eventual fall on the religion(which I dont buy one bit TBH)

2,000 years ago women led very different lives, one story says that Joseph had to flee with his pregnant betrothed because local law obliged him to stone her to death [even if it had been he who had made her pregnant and not an angel] and both were under the death penalty [by public stoning] as he had not complied ~ he fled with the Mother of Christ ~

Well I think that's in the gospels anyway is it not?

I think the Catholic Church is living up to it ancient traditions ~ let it to them, IMO, find the teachings of Christ and be your own church.

Much as he would have preached. then again you cant really build a hierarchy with a powerbase on that, hence the organised churches and hence a lot of the sidelining of women. The Romans had a fear and mistrust of women, just like the Greeks before them(though not nearly as bad). Women had no vote, were married off young, could hold no office etc. In only one area could they have any sort of public power and that was religion. But they had to remain "clean" vestal virgins anyone? So nuns had previous as a notion and an association of virginity with religious purity. Priests and monks could marry. Our own st patricks da was a deacon and his grandda a priest/monk. Family biz so to speak. This freedom of men and women on the back of christianity was quite prevalent on the fringes. Like I said women could run monasteries and be above men :eek:. The roman church had kittens over that as can be seen in some extant letters from the time. Sexuality was less an issue too on the fringes. Patrick though a real crawthumper and apocalyptic preacher, never once mentions bedroom antics(he comments on the beauty of individual women a couple of times too). Given the Irish had a rep at the time of being lecherous buggers this is unusual. Even more so given the attitude the church in rome had to the subject. Read the Tain and you could make a script for a porno out of the couplings in it, more often than not instigated by the ladies*. And the only reason we have this story is because the monks recorded it, wrote it down and copied it. Which was also frowned upon in rome. This recording of non religious texts.

As an aside, what is impressive about Roman women is how many of them did make waves even with such restrictions in place. In one way though Christianity of the roman sort while restricing women in one way did allow them in another way to be powerful members of the community if they became nuns. Compared to their freeborn sisters, it freed them from marriage slavery, death by childbirth and educated them. If I had been a woman in say 13th century France, I reckon if I could I would have become a nun. Plus given the stories of shenanigans with nuns, it didnt stop some of them getting busy between the sheets either.



*any ladies out there who wonder should they make a move on men they like, read the Tain and learn from your sisters of long ago. They also didnt take crap from the men either.

DublinWriter

I've long since given up on taking spiritual advice from an old man dressed like a Wedding Cake at a chav's wedding.

amacachi

Sorry but anyone who still believes in anything that comes from the Vatican is retarded. It may be because they were battered in convents as children, but they're retarded.

metrovelvet

This says to me that the penny still hasn't dropped regarding the graveness of child sex abuse.

They are nowhere near on par.

The_Minister

The Church has not actually equated child sex abuse and ordaining women

Saying they have i like saying that because we place Cannabis and Heroin in the same Class, that Irish law must equate them.

Both crimes are punishable by automatic excommunication, the worst punishment that the Church can give - it doesn't mean that the church believes that they are on a par.

The Church has no worse punishment to give, so they have to lump things like heresy and child abuse together - they don't have a choice.


And the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) basically says that they cannot ordain women priests, as women are not allow speak in Church (obviously some speaking is allowed but the passage is clear).

Wibbs

The_Minister wrote: »

[And the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) basically says that they cannot ordain women priests, as women are not allow speak in Church (obviously some speaking is allowed but the passage is clear).

Oh yea Paul of Tarsus, that paragon of equality. Indeed in Paulianism, it's pretty copperfastened as a rule, but in Christianity?.... well not so much. The biggest problem for that faith IMHO is when they took on Paul as the leader and moral and cultural centre and then allied that to Rome. Well Paul was the shoe in for that role. He appealed to the suburban Roman with all their baggage very nicely.

amacachi

The_Minister wrote: »

And the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) basically says that they cannot ordain women priests, as women are not allow speak in Church (obviously some speaking is allowed but the passage is clear).

So they're taking that particular bit of the bible literally but not the rest? Sounds about right.

DeVore

The_Minister wrote: »

The Church has not actually equated child sex abuse and ordaining women

Saying they have i like saying that because we place Cannabis and Heroin in the same Class, that Irish law must equate them.

Both crimes are punishable by automatic excommunication, the worst punishment that the Church can give - it doesn't mean that the church believes that they are on a par.

The Church has no worse punishment to give, so they have to lump things like heresy and child abuse together - they don't have a choice.


And the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) basically says that they cannot ordain women priests, as women are not allow speak in Church (obviously some speaking is allowed but the passage is clear).

It was clarified only a few days ago in this country that conviction for child abuse will not mean automatic removal from the priesthood, let alone ex-communication so you are incorrect there.


Cant imagine why any woman would want to be a priest but on the grounds of equal right to be dumb, knock yerselves out. In fact, I see no reason why there shouldnt be hermaphrodite black midget priests for all I care. Let them marry each other too. Go nuts! :eek:


DeV.

seenitall

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Any organised religion/ideology/(insert your institution based on indoctrination of choice), left to its own devices WILL wield damage of all sorts on its followers/flock/citizens sooner rather later. Human nature can't help itself. A western democratic government, divorced from religion, although very flawed indeed, remains the best choice there is.

I have a double whammy of an experience, coming from Communism to Catholicism. Lucky me!

altnaneen

I am so angry and embarrassed at this latest revelation from the vatican. I don't think that it meant that one (ie women not being priests) would actually stop the abuse of children. Fo me it meant that child abusers would be laitised and horor of horrors women who cant become priests would be excommunicated if they did ! . I was born a catholic and would have a strong faith and I believe that we are body and soul. Why should I let some power hungry man drive me from my place of worship. To tell the truth I feel really sad beside my anger. Women seem to have been put down in all the major religions. I had hope for years that the women who attend, (about 85%-95% locally are women) the church services would have been given equal status to men who have made such a mess of it but no ! Once again the hammer has fallen. For those of us who want our faith it is eating into us body and soul. All areas where women focus, angels, reiki, healing, even tai chi has been condemned as sinful. Some may understand here that I for one dont know what to do. Perhaps the vatican might suggest that we be burned at the stake. I am looking at other paths to God and I cant quite belive it

Angry and Sad

amacachi

altnaneen wrote: »

I am so angry and embarrassed at this latest revelation from the vatican. I don't think that it meant that one (ie women not being priests) would actually stop the abuse of children. Fo me it meant that child abusers would be laitised and horor of horrors women who cant become priests would be excommunicated if they did ! . I was born a catholic and would have a strong faith and I believe that we are body and soul. Why should I let some power hungry man drive me from my place of worship. To tell the truth I feel really sad beside my anger. Women seem to have been put down in all the major religions. I had hope for years that the women who attend, (about 85%-95% locally are women) the church services would have been given equal status to men who have made such a mess of it but no ! Once again the hammer has fallen. For those of us who want our faith it is eating into us body and soul. All areas where women focus, angels, reiki, healing, even tai chi has been condemned as sinful. Some may understand here that I for one dont know what to do. Perhaps the vatican might suggest that we be burned at the stake. I am looking at other paths to God and I cant quite belive it

Angry and Sad

You weren't born a catholic, and I purposely don't capitalise that. Look around, if you are determined to Believe in everything Jesus Christ said then look at the Protestant religions because they wake way more sense than any bull**** from the formerly Nazi controlled Roman bloody Church.

panda100

Altannen,thank you for sharing with us as a RC women. I can understand your anger and upset.

What annoys me is that so many of my RC female friends are not angry or upset at this news? Are they so indoctrinated that they question nothing the RC church says or does?


This is kinda off topic,but still has to do with the complete patriarchy of religion.
I've been watching Big Brother this year and theres this uber religious Born against Christian on it whose some type of priest. In the first week he nominated a very attractive women to be evicted because she wore skimpy clothes and he didn't like that he could see her knickers.
Then two days ago he encouraged a male mate of his in the house to strip starkers, get his balls out for everyone to see, and he was patting him on the ass and everything.

It just seemed so hypocritical to me, and this is what religious does. Its bound to be prejudiced particularly towards women when there is no women in the decision making processes of the church.

Pythia

This kinda thing make me so glad I'm not Catholic.

altnaneen

I didn't really mean that I was born a catholic, I should have said into a catholic family and I choose to live my life as such as an adult. it would not be right for me to simply jump to another Christian faith because I believe in fundamental teaching of the catholic faith that is not a part of other Christian faiths. I am in no way saying that these beliefs are the only way to God, I don't believe that, as I believe that it is how we live our lives that will decide our next move in the afterlife. I do love having faith and it is very important to me. What the church has created and ignored i.e. child abuse! their protective secretive attitude towards abuse and their ignorance and superior attitude toward women leaves a lot of people in a quandary. Do you know if they had even said that although they could never be priests that the input of women was equal to that of men, valued by the church equally.... yet in different roles it would not have been so bad ... who am I kidding ? In our church a virgin is good, a mother is good but the in between ... naughty, sinful and bad. I remember women being churched years ago outside the alter rails, purified! I thought we had changed. We need a Woman Church but wc would NOT look good .. I am open to ideas!

amacachi

Not seeing anything there that doesn't fall under just about every European Protestant religion.

panda100

altnaneen wrote: »

I didn't really mean that I was born a catholic, I should have said into a catholic family and I choose to live my life as such as an adult. it would not be right for me to simply jump to another Christian faith because I believe in fundamental teaching of the catholic faith that is not a part of other Christian faiths. I am in no way saying that these beliefs are the only way to God, I don't believe that, as I believe that it is how we live our lives that will decide our next move in the afterlife. I do love having faith and it is very important to me. What the church has created and ignored i.e. child abuse! their protective secretive attitude towards abuse and their ignorance and superior attitude toward women leaves a lot of people in a quandary. Do you know if they had even said that although they could never be priests that the input of women was equal to that of men, valued by the church equally.... yet in different roles it would not have been so bad ... who am I kidding ? In our church a virgin is good, a mother is good but the in between ... naughty, sinful and bad. I remember women being churched years ago outside the alter rails, purified! I thought we had changed. We need a Woman Church but wc would NOT look good .. I am open to ideas!

Alltaneen it sounds to me like you don't actually believe in the fundamental teachings of the RC church?
You are confusing what you would like the RC church teachings to be,and what they really are. I did this myself for years and years.

One of the most important doctrine in the RC church is that it is not in God's plan to have women as priests.To quote John Paul II, The church has "consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."

Personally,I would find it extremely hypocritical of the church to suddenly allow women to become priests. Nothing is more shallow than an organisation that is continually changing its beliefs to appear popular to the masses. Yet the RC church has changed its views on indulgences,original sin,limbo and various other teachings that have proved unpopular. This is not the Word of God but really the whims of men hoping to be popular.

I am curious what part of the Catholic faith do you believe in that you feel other Christian religions don't have? I hope you don't mind me asking a personal question like this, I am just curious.

DeVore

Its ALL really the whims of men hoping to be popular. :^/

DeV.

Smallbit

altnaneen wrote: »

I didn't really mean that I was born a catholic, I should have said into a catholic family and I choose to live my life as such as an adult. it would not be right for me to simply jump to another Christian faith because I believe in fundamental teaching of the catholic faith .....

..... I am open to ideas!

This sums it up for me really. One's religion is an accident of birth. If one decides to believe in the minutiae of any particular cult, and accept without any proof whatsoever that cult's idiosyncrasies, it renders one logically constrained. How can one be open to ideas if one makes a distinction between the teachings of various monotheistic faiths?

Had the OP been born a muslim, she might well equally believe stories of horses flying to heaven and submit to genital mutilation. It's all purely an accident of birth. Rare are the cases of those who change from the religion into which they were brainwashed before they developed their faculties of logical or reason.

The argument is moot because if women wish to be ordained within a particular cult they can simply set up an almost identical cult but essentially addressed at the same fictitious supernatural being. We're not constrained by reality here, but are perhaps, by delusion.

My apologies to anyone reading this that feels their faith has not been respected but remember that one's beliefs do not automatically garner respect.

panda100

There was an interesting article in the Times over the weekend with a women involved in an organisation called RomanCatholicWomenPriests.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0731/1224275874936.html

Cardinal Daly refused to accept a petition of 10,000 signatures from her calling for women to become priests. What a corrupt organisation the RC church is when it won't even listen to its members.
It enrages me how much influence this rotton religion was allowed to have in my upbringing and life.