Pope Francis excommunicates Fr Greg Reynolds

iainbumerford

Let this be a warning to ACP types who think they'll have free reign under Pope Francis's rule.

Giving dogs Holy Communion is not acceptable. Nor is stirring up the feelings of the faithful with regard to women priests.

Doctor DooM

iainbumerford wrote: »

Let this be a warning to ACP types who think they'll have free reign under Pope Francis's rule.

Giving dogs Holy Communion is not acceptable. Nor is stirring up the feelings of the faithful with regard to women priests.

He didn't give communion to the dog. The reports, that were never proven I think in a court of law, were that someone else at the mass did.

...but carry on.

iainbumerford

Doctor DooM wrote: »

He didn't give communion to the dog. The reports, that were never proven I think in a court of law, were that someone else at the mass did.

...but carry on.

The facts are that he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367).

That a dog ate it is irrelevant.

Soul Winner

iainbumerford wrote: »

The facts are that he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367).

That a dog ate it is irrelevant.

Seems a bit heavy handed when one considers that the RCC have yet to excommunicate Adolf Hitler :rolleyes:

First Up

iainbumerford wrote: »

The facts are that he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367).

That a dog ate it is irrelevant.

Did someone mention irrelevance?

Benny_Cake

Some background for those, like myself, who never heard of this incident before now:

http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated

http://ncronline.org/news/excommunicated-australian-priest-i-did-not-give-communion-dog

iainbumerford

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems a bit heavy handed when one considers that the RCC have yet to excommunicate Adolf Hitler :rolleyes:

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity. Also, Hitler wasn't an ordained priest.

iainbumerford

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Some background for those, like myself, who never heard of this incident before now:

http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated

http://ncronline.org/news/excommunicated-australian-priest-i-did-not-give-communion-dog

Violating the Eucharist (or allowing it to happen) automatically places the culprit outside the Church. A dog did eat the Eucharist. And Fr Reynolds allowed it to happen.

Oh, and I'll see your biased reports and raise you:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html

Corkfeen

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity. Also, Hitler wasn't an ordained priest.

Just in case I'm reading you wrong, are you saying this priest's actions were worse than Hitler 's? May be reading you wrong but that's how it reads.

Turtwig

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity.

Ok, so if I slaughter a billion humans that's not as bad as a priest peeing on consecrated Eucharist?

martinedwards

or put it another way,

would Hitler give a toss is he HAD been excommed?

whereas a RC priest would be more than a little ticked off.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jernal wrote: »

Ok, so if I slaughter a billion humans that's not as bad as a priest peeing on consecrated Eucharist?

Depends on the religion of the billion humans.

Benny_Cake

If a priest gave communion to a dog, I can see how that would be disrespectful. It doesn't sound as if that's what happened here, and in any case, to describe it as a worse crime than anything Hitler did is hyperbolic nonsense.

Although there is some precedent for priests who are worse than Hitler...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_3DWsJrNU4

Soul Winner

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity. Also, Hitler wasn't an ordained priest.

So raping kids is not worthy of the same attention as dropping a piece of wafer on the ground? I get you now. Reminds me of one of the many reasons I stopped being a Roman Catholic in the first place.

If a non-living piece of wafer is consecrated then how much more a little child for whom Christ died? Of whom Jesus Himself said "should anyone offend one of these little ones it will be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the sea." I'd rather drop the wafer thanks.

Doc Farrell

I wouldn't get too upset about Iain's opinion although I'd be curious to know which group preach it. Iain?

Benny_Cake

Iain has earned himself a siteban so I wouldn't expect an answer to that anytime soon Doc!

Corkfeen

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Iain has earned himself a siteban so I wouldn't expect an answer to that anytime soon Doc!

He seemed like such a nice human being. :P

Turtwig

Corkfeen wrote: »

He seemed like such a nice human being. :P

Probably, He was just.
*takes off glasses*
An Actor.

Yeahhhhhhh!

Corkfeen

Jernal wrote: »

Probably, He was just.
*takes off glasses*
An Actor.

Yeahhhhhhh!

Ah, I reported as a rereg but disappointed that I didn't recognise his styling. Horatio always wins.

Kiwi in IE

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity.

I am sorry. Have been trying very hard to keep my oar out of this forum ( the old "if you have nothing nice to say...........) but are you for real? Speaking up for gender equality and throwing away a communion wafer is worse than genocide?

Kiwi in IE

Oops sorry mods should have read past that astounding post before replying.

Turtwig

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Oops sorry mods should have read past that astounding post before replying.

Banned

:P

prettygurrly

Soul Winner wrote: »

So raping kids is not worthy of the same attention as dropping a piece of wafer on the ground? I get you now. Reminds me of one of the many reasons I stopped being a Roman Catholic in the first place.

If a non-living piece of wafer is consecrated then how much more a little child for whom Christ died? Of whom Jesus Himself said "should anyone offend one of these little ones it will be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the sea." I'd rather drop the wafer thanks.

you hit the nail on the head there Soul Winner...sadly. They really need to get their prerogatives sorted.

lmaopml

A Priest actively retired his public ministry and decided to not say Mass for the faithful under the banner of the Church because he had problems he obviously needed to sort out... His resignation is noted, and he no longer acts on behalf of the Church. It's not made public at this stage..he retires quietly, but is grieved...

Same Priest says Mass for a group of individuals after he retires and actively supports (to his recommendation) 'inclusive' talk, but actively builds up a group of individuals who support him, and thinks he is a revolutionary ( not exactly recommended as a Saint) - and are opposed to the Catholic Church - same retired Priest is seen as a person who says he is acting on behalf of the Church, Mass, Marriage etc. etc. but who clearly isn't, he is acting on behalf of 'his' Church, and saying 'Catholic' - not so. It's made public for the sake of not the retired Priest who couldn't live his vows but the faithful who may come across him, and think he didn't already retire public ministry only to preach his own version publicly.

The first thing that comes to mind is all those Priests he has let down who actually live their vows, and are honorable saying 'Mass' for the faithful. I know some may believe 'Mass' is a Father Ted thing...but seriously it's not. It's so very difficult to see in these time the value of every Mass, unless one is interested in a little discovery...

Whether people love this guy or no - he made a promise that he failed to deliver - He made an oath that he didn't take seriously - He actively opposes his previous vow that he made to God.

Thumbs down.

Asher Wynott 55

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems a bit heavy handed when one considers that the RCC have yet to excommunicate Adolf Hitler :rolleyes:

i think he's dead now

Bannasidhe

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity. Also, Hitler wasn't an ordained priest.

:eek:

No. No they most certainly are not.

Bannasidhe

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Oops sorry mods should have read past that astounding post before replying.

Me too.

Soul Winner

Asher Wynott 55 wrote: »

i think he's dead now

If the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and St Joan of Arc can have their excommunicated statuses lifted posthumously then surely Hitler can have his non-excommunicated status lifted posthumously too.

Doc Farrell

'Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler,
If you think we're on the run.'

Fairly sure it's a little late to make a difference for Adolf.

Anyhow, here's a brief explanation of being excommunicado.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-excommunication-and-other-penalties.html

Not the end of the world, if you will pardon the phrase, Adolf.

Soul Winner

Doc Farrell wrote: »

'Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler,
If you think we're on the run.'

Fairly sure it's a little late to make a difference for Adolf.

Anyhow, here's a brief explanation of being excommunicado.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-excommunication-and-other-penalties.html

Not the end of the world, if you will pardon the phrase, Adolf.

So basically its OK to murder over 6 million people and still be part of the RCC? Gotcha, thanks.

I noticed in that link that one of the offences that warrants automatic (i.e without the intervention of the church) excommunication is: "Sacramental absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments". So I looked up (on their own link) what the 6th and 9th commandments were:

6th and 9th) "“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife."

This is their definition: "The sixth and ninth commandments honor human sexuality. This commandment forbids the actual, physical act of having immoral sexual activity, specifically adultery, which is sex with someone else’s spouse or a spouse cheating on their partner. This commandment also includes fornication, which is sex between unmarried people, prostitution, pornography, homosexual activity, masturbation, group sex, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia."

So even by their own standards pedophilia is considered an offence worthy of excommunication. So why haven't all the child molesting priests (who have been found guilty of pedophilia by the law) been openly excommunicated from the RCC? Why does the RCC bend over backwards to protect these guys while at the same time wastes no time at all in excommunicating a priest who dropped a piece of concentrated wafer on the ground? Of all the things that are going on in the world I fail to find anything as brazenly blatant and seemingly openly proud of their hypocrisy as this. I am so glad that I do not belong to this most evil, corrupt, insidious betrayer of humanity and God organisation that mankind has ever had the misfortune to encounter on the stage of history.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4

Benny_Cake

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am so glad that I do not belong to this most evil, corrupt, insidious betrayer of humanity and God organisation that mankind has ever had the misfortune to encounter on the stage of history.

Mod note: If you want to discuss excommunication, you may do so here. However, we do have Catholic posters and intemperate remarks such as this are grossly offensive. Moderate your tone, please.

Soul Winner

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod note: If you want to discuss excommunication, you may do so here. However, we do have Catholic posters and intemperate remarks such as this are grossly offensive. Moderate your tone, please.

My remarks are directed at the institution of the RCC and not at Catholics themselves. My intention is not to offend Catholics, rather to prod them into acknowledgement that their 'organisation' isn't the be all and end all they've been taught it is. Serious reform is needed within that organisation and as soon I see these reforms I will continue harbour this attitude towards it. And when it does make these reforms I will be the first to applaud it. So apologies if I offended anybody. I was brought up as Catholic myself but I gave up on the institution because of its hypocrisy (as I seen it). But for the sake of keeping the peace in here I will desist in such provocative language in future as per your admonition.

georgieporgy

Soul Winner wrote: »

So basically its OK to murder over 6 million people and still be part of the RCC? Gotcha, thanks.

I noticed in that link that one of the offences that warrants automatic (i.e without the intervention of the church) excommunication is: "Sacramental absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments". So I looked up (on their own link) what the 6th and 9th commandments were:

6th and 9th) "“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife."

This is their definition: "The sixth and ninth commandments honor human sexuality. This commandment forbids the actual, physical act of having immoral sexual activity, specifically adultery, which is sex with someone else’s spouse or a spouse cheating on their partner. This commandment also includes fornication, which is sex between unmarried people, prostitution, pornography, homosexual activity, masturbation, group sex, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia."

So even by their own standards pedophilia is considered an offence worthy of excommunication. So why haven't all the child molesting priests (who have been found guilty of pedophilia by the law) been openly excommunicated from the RCC? Why does the RCC bend over backwards to protect these guys while at the same time wastes no time at all in excommunicating a priest who dropped a piece of concentrated wafer on the ground? Of all the things that are going on in the world I fail to find anything as brazenly blatant and seemingly openly proud of their hypocrisy as this. I am so glad that I do not belong to this most evil, corrupt, insidious betrayer of humanity and God organisation that mankind has ever had the misfortune to encounter on the stage of history.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4

You appear to have misread and misunderstood the passage which I have highlighted above.
The offence that earns the offending priest automatic excommunication is one where he gives sacramental absolution to his sexual partner. If a priest and the local postman's wife are commiting adultery with each other, and she then confesses her sin to him and he gives her sacramental absolution, the whole thing is obviously a farce. It is an abuse of the sacrament, and the seriousness of the abuse is highlighted by the automatic penalty such abuse incurs.

The (unrepented) sin of pedophilia (like most other sins) just has the usual penalty of the loss of one's soul for all eternity.

Puck

iainbumerford wrote: »

Crimes against the faith are more serious than crimes against humanity. Also, Hitler wasn't an ordained priest.

How is genocide and war not a crime against the Christian faith when we claim to follow a man who said to love your neighbour as yourself?

Doctor DooM

Puck wrote: »

How is genocide and war not a crime against the Christian faith when we claim to follow a man who said to love your neighbour as yourself?

That poster's been banned, he can't answer back.

recedite

BAD DOGGIE !
There's going to be consequences for scoffing that bread....

full article

brian_t

recedite wrote: »

BAD DOGGIE !
There's going to be consequences for scoffing that bread....

full article

That article has already been linked to in post #8

recedite

Ah, but what a fantastic photo.
The poor priest has no idea of the ramifications of what just happened.
The dog has that guilty look about him though.

Doc Farrell

With respect the reasons for his excommunication are much more interesting, although admittedly that dog definitely looks guilty.
Benny cake linked to it in the fourth or fifth post but here's a summary.

"The decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest," Hart wrote.

But Reynolds said he believes the excommunication also resulted from his support of the gay community. He told NCR that in the last two years, he has attended rallies in Melbourne advocating same-sex marriage and has officiated at mass weddings of gay couples on the steps of Parliament -- "all unofficial of course."

Ambersky

Lovely photo there Recedite the dogs expression is priceless, the picture seems to put the whole thing in a bit of perspective, what an evil looking group of people. I know you cant always tell on looks alone but what terrible things they seem to have done, speaking when they were specifically told not to, welcoming gays and women who feel disenfranchised, survivors of abuse and those who feel outcast in general.
Ah Pope Francis, I had such hopes but it may be as I feared with basically the same old thing dressed up a bit nicer.
We had a stern intellectual but distant Papa and now we have the nice(r) more humane Papa, but you still have to do what Daddy says or he will get very cross. So "no talking about things I told you not to talk about in this house, thats it, final, and what I say goes!"
Theres a name for that, something about systems that rely on a hierarchical rule by dominant fathers or father figures, focusing on Obedience and Control, now whats it called....no its not love, that confusion comes from an outdated dysfunctional model of relationship, no its called something else

katydid

iainbumerford wrote: »

Let this be a warning to ACP types who think they'll have free reign under Pope Francis's rule.

Giving dogs Holy Communion is not acceptable. Nor is stirring up the feelings of the faithful with regard to women priests.

He didn't give a dog holy communion. He gave a parishioner communion, and the parishioner gave it to his dog.

katydid

iainbumerford wrote: »

The facts are that he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367).

That a dog ate it is irrelevant.

He was distributing communion. How could he have stopped the man giving it to his dog?

Red Nissan

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems a bit heavy handed when one considers that the RCC have yet to excommunicate Adolf Hitler :rolleyes:

Why? I presume you know that Adolf and the Vatican were best allies and the Vatican were to be the official religion providers in the conquered countries, plans got weigh-laid by the distracting and unplanned war with England.

Red Nissan

Jernal wrote: »

Ok, so if I slaughter a billion humans that's not as bad as a priest peeing on consecrated Eucharist?

It can't be just any random billion humans though, the Vatican has a list of undesirables, promise to dispose of some of these in your billion deaths and you're next to being a saint.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

He was distributing communion. How could he have stopped the man giving it to his dog?

Iainbumerford has been sitebanned, so don't expect a reply.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Iainbumerford has been sitebanned, so don't expect a reply.

Ok, thanks

Benny_Cake

Red Nissan wrote: »

Why? I presume you know that Adolf and the Vatican were best allies and the Vatican were to be the official religion providers in the conquered countries, plans got weigh-laid by the distracting and unplanned war with England.

Red Nissan wrote: »

It can't be just any random billion humans though, the Vatican has a list of undesirables, promise to dispose of some of these in your billion deaths and you're next to being a saint.

I presume that you have a source for this that isn't a Chick tract?

recedite

Whatever about Hitler being excommunicated or not, his "concordat" or treaty with the Vatican still stands.
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=858
The Holy See waits for fascist or right wing regimes to take hold in a country, and then negotiates these deals. The deals remain in force long after the regime ends.
In Germany over €9 Billion in "church tax" is collected by the taxman every year and handed over to the churches. It enables bishops to live like medieval princes. Although not a direct result of the concordat, it is a legacy of right wing regimes.

In the last few years a number of new concordats have been signed by the current right wing ultra-nationalist govt. in Hungary which will bind that country long into the future.

georgieporgy

Those interested in relations between the Holy See and Hitler's Germany should acquaint themselves with the contents of "Mit Brennender Sorge" which in 1937 warned the German population of the dangers ahead.

http://www.pope-pius-xii.com/index.php?q=node/7

In 1937, Eugenio Pacelli drafted the Papal encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’, a strong criticism of Nazism. To ensure that it would be able to pass, the essay was secretly distributed by a force of motorcyclists to every Catholic Church in Germany, and read out from every pulpit in the country. ‘With burning Anxiety’ was an attack on the Nazi Party and the Nazi way of thinking, as it clearly condemned all instances of racism as well as the pagan ideology of the National Socialists.

The Nazi’s, as always, were quick to retort and visited all diocese offices in the country the very next day, seizing all existing copies of the encyclical. They also closed down all the publishing companies having printed the article, and illegalised all diocesian newspapers. Hitler was said to be fuming, vowing revenge against the Church, which he sought mainly to do by a vast propaganda and publicity campaign, rather than by use of force. For instance, homosexual priests were put on trail under great publicity, and in one Nazi film actors dressed up as priest were depicted dancing in a brothel.

Bannasidhe

georgieporgy wrote: »

Those interested in relations between the Holy See and Hitler's Germany should acquaint themselves with the contents of "Mit Brennender Sorge" which in 1937 warned the German population of the dangers ahead.

http://www.pope-pius-xii.com/index.php?q=node/7

In 1937, Eugenio Pacelli drafted the Papal encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’, a strong criticism of Nazism. To ensure that it would be able to pass, the essay was secretly distributed by a force of motorcyclists to every Catholic Church in Germany, and read out from every pulpit in the country. ‘With burning Anxiety’ was an attack on the Nazi Party and the Nazi way of thinking, as it clearly condemned all instances of racism as well as the pagan ideology of the National Socialists.

The Nazi’s, as always, were quick to retort and visited all diocese offices in the country the very next day, seizing all existing copies of the encyclical. They also closed down all the publishing companies having printed the article, and illegalised all diocesian newspapers. Hitler was said to be fuming, vowing revenge against the Church, which he sought mainly to do by a vast propaganda and publicity campaign, rather than by use of force. For instance, homosexual priests were put on trail under great publicity, and in one Nazi film actors dressed up as priest were depicted dancing in a brothel.

The should also compare this 'distributed in secret' document with the very highly publicised 1933 Concordat between the Nazi administration and the Vatican.

The following Reich Concordat, which was supposed to regulate the relationship between the German Reich and the Catholic Church, was signed by representatives of both entities on July 20, 1933, and ratified on September 10 of the same year. The Vatican, which sympathized with the Nazi regime’s anti-liberal, anti-Communist stance, hoped that by withdrawing from all political areas it could buy a legal guarantee of its special institutional rights – i.e., self-administration and confessional freedom.

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1570 Contains full text of the Concordat.

It seem to me that the Vatican was perfectly willing to support the regime as long as the regime left it alone. Funny how it was only after the Nazi's began to encroach directly on the RCC did the Vatican find the 'courage' to very quietly protest.

pauldla

July 20, 1933? They didn't waste much time, did they?