Vatican Says that Ordaining Women Priests is a Crime Like Sex Abuse of Children - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 01:05 PM
 
umsami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capital City
Posts: 10,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
P&L, I think this might be the article you're looking for http://www.catholicleague.org/resear...al_context.htm

However, when they compare sexual abuse among Protestant clergy, they clarify that it does not have to do with abusing children. It usually refers to clergy who have had a sexual relationship with a parishoner, although not a minor. It says among Protestant churches, abusers are more likely to be volunteers than clergy. Also, I think one of the big big issues among many is not that pedophiles exist--it's the protection of pedophile priests and the fact that those in charge did nothing (in most cases) to keep them from working with and abusing children again.

As a Muslim, I'm just waiting for the scandals to happen among the Muslm community. There's such a cultural taboo about even talking about sex...or sexual abuse...incest... pedophilia.... and there's such a culture of not questioning an Imam/Shaykh.... that I fear there probably exist some truly predatory Muslim clerics as well.

Mom to DS(8), DS(6), DD(4), and DS(1).  "Kids do as well as they can."

umsami is offline  
#62 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 01:06 PM
 
moonshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
If everyone sticks to that mind set, then there is no advancement. And yes, the Catholic church can advance but they have no reason to if no one pushes them to.

.
What you may see as advancement MANY Catholics see as destruction. The Church is not a governmental institution, which many on this thread seem to think it is. It does not move along to the whims of popular culture, thank goodness.

Catherinepraying.gif traditional Catholic mama to bikenew.gifjammin.gifdiaper.gif wife to an amazing man.selectivevax.gifnocirc.giffamilybed1.gif

moonshoes is offline  
#63 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 01:38 PM
 
griffin2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On permanent holiday
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've never understood the "Jesus chose men to be priests therefore we can't ordain women" argument. If we're going to subscribe to this, shouldn't we allow priests to be married? Remember Simon Peter's (the rock upon which the church was built) wife and MIL? If Jesus chose not only men, but married men, shouldn't we be doing the same today?

I think we're confusing the culturally dictated with the divinely inspired and also treading on the VERY thin ice of imposing man-made (meaning man in the specific sense of male, not meaning human) boundaries on Jesus' universal, eternal teachings.

wild.gif  kickin' it old school
griffin2004 is offline  
#64 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 01:45 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karenwith4 View Post
I think ordaining women would change the need for the Catholic church to shuffle sex offenders from parish to parish, avoiding the problem and maintaining their declining number of priest. The introduction of women into the power structure would also IMO make a difference about how these issues are handled.



I'm not arguing that sex crimes don't happen in other situations. Clearly they do. But I would like to see your evidence that it happens far more in Protestant denominations. From what I have read pedophilia runs at about 4-6% of priests which is the top end of the estimates for the general public where it is estimated at 1- 4%. (source)

None of that negates however that the sex abuse of children should in any way or circumstance be compared to elevating the status of women to be on par with men. The idea is both absurd and clearly illustrates just how out of touch the patriarchy is with reality. I personally think it is a deliberate diversionary tactic.
This argument ignores the reasons that the priest abuse scandal happened in the first place. Have you read Goodbye Good Men by Michael S. Rose? How about The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture by Philip F. Lawler ? Or how about the study done by the John Jay institute which can be read here?
Arduinna is offline  
#65 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 02:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryBomb View Post
So basically, if the Catholic Church would just become Episcopilian, everything would be perfect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post

Because we all know that the Epsicopalians/Anglicans are SOOOO united!
TEC, anyone?
I fail to see how the above is upholding a "discussion with the utmost respect and consideration for participants and readers".


Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
It comes from the whole "different parts of the one body" thing.

As we can see from St. Paul, not all of us are called to the same thing. In demanding that we all be able to be priests, we are violating the very tenents that our faith was founded on. Saying that the priesthood should be open to everyone is akin to saying that we should all be hands, or all be feet.
God chose specific people to fulfill specific roles.
I don't really think that those who support the ordination of women are "demanding" that the priesthood be open to EVERYONE. Obviously, not everyone will experience that particular call. I think we can all acknowledge that much. Though I support women's ordination, it is not a call I have received myself, nor do I have any desire to be a priest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
God has given us a role and regardless of how we feel about it we must fulfill it and we may not haphazardly usrup the role God has not ordained for us.
Except, according to you, if God happens to call a woman to the priesthood?
Just because a woman feels called does NOT mean that she is "haphazardly" doing anything. I can assure you that women take their spiritual callings as seriously as men do. (And I think you mean "usurp".)

Quote:
There is a place for everyone, even though who wish to serve God full time through prayer, worship and service to God. (any loser can choose a monastic life)
Seriously? Did you really just say that?!


Quote:
Women are not allowed to serve at the alter
So you do not support female altar (spellcheck, it's a beautiful thing ) servers/acolytes, either?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
If everyone sticks to that mind set, then there is no advancement. And yes, the Catholic church can advance but they have no reason to if no one pushes them to.

Things change... Even in the Catholic church and according to them, when conflict arises, dialog should occur.
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin2004 View Post
I've never understood the "Jesus chose men to be priests therefore we can't ordain women" argument. If we're going to subscribe to this, shouldn't we allow priests to be married? Remember Simon Peter's (the rock upon which the church was built) wife and MIL? If Jesus chose not only men, but married men, shouldn't we be doing the same today?
The reasons why priests are not allowed to be married are complicated and no longer exist today. It has NOTHING to do with celibacy, per se. The Church norm was married clergy for about the first 400 years; we should and could return to that state.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#66 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 02:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyone read Hans Küng's Open Letter to the Bishops?

Quote:
Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter "to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong"! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#67 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 02:23 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You're seriously quoting Kung? You know he has been stripped of the right to teach theology, right?
Arduinna is offline  
#68 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 02:58 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshoes View Post
What you may see as advancement MANY Catholics see as destruction. The Church is not a governmental institution, which many on this thread seem to think it is. It does not move along to the whims of popular culture, thank goodness.
And that Catholic church (as in, the guys in Vatican City) claims is how things are to be done as Catholics... So which is it? Believe what they say or be allowed to have different opinions than the church?

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#69 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 03:02 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post
I don't really think that those who support the ordination of women are "demanding" that the priesthood be open to EVERYONE. Obviously, not everyone will experience that particular call. I think we can all acknowledge that much. Though I support women's ordination, it is not a call I have received myself, nor do I have any desire to be a priest.
Right .

I don't think anyone who wants to be a priest should be allowed to be one, but I also don't think gender should be a deciding factor. The church could (and in some cases has) do worse than a woman who truly believes what she is teaching and lives the life of a faithful Catholic.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#70 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 03:05 PM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
You're seriously quoting Kung? You know he has been stripped of the right to teach theology, right?
I am in shock, as well!

Proud Catholic transtichel.gif(28) and mama to Vdust.gif (7)

PatienceAndLove is offline  
#71 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 03:09 PM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post
I fail to see how the above is upholding a "discussion with the utmost respect and consideration for participants and readers".
You are correct. Mea culpa.


Quote:
So you do not support female altar (spellcheck, it's a beautiful thing ) servers/acolytes, either?
I dunno about the OP, but I don't. It may be allowed, but I believe that it is a hindrence to the vocation of the priesthood.
However, the Magistarium has said it is up to individual Bishops and Priests to decide if women may serve on the altar. If my local Bishop and my parish priest decide to allow women in the altar, I will support that decision. I may not agree with it, but I will honor the decision they have made since they are my spiritual shepherds.


Quote:
The reasons why priests are not allowed to be married are complicated and no longer exist today. It has NOTHING to do with celibacy, per se. The Church norm was married clergy for about the first 400 years; we should and could return to that state.
There are married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were pastors in their previous denomiation.
The Catholic Church, however, holds that celibacy is a discipline that it requires of all unmarried men seeking the priesthood.
If you look at the deaconate or the Eastern Churches, if a man is married BEFORE he is ordained, that's fine. However, once ordination occurs, a man cannot get married. Those in the perminate deaconate who lose their wives are not allowed to get remarried- or if they were single upon ordination, the cannot getmarried. The same goes in the Eastern Churches.

Proud Catholic transtichel.gif(28) and mama to Vdust.gif (7)

PatienceAndLove is offline  
#72 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 03:17 PM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
And that Catholic church (as in, the guys in Vatican City) claims is how things are to be done as Catholics... So which is it? Believe what they say or be allowed to have different opinions than the church?
Believe what "they" [The Catholic Church] say since the Church is the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of Truth, and is lead by the Holy Spirit.

Matt 16: 18 & 19
Quote:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
2 Thess 14
Quote:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
1 Tim 3:15
Quote:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Proud Catholic transtichel.gif(28) and mama to Vdust.gif (7)

PatienceAndLove is offline  
#73 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 04:36 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
Believe what "they" [The Catholic Church] say since the Church is the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of Truth, and is lead by the Holy Spirit.

Matt 16: 18 & 19


2 Thess 14


1 Tim 3:15
So we listen to the church and have open dialog instead of telling people "love it or leave it".

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
There are married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were pastors in their previous denomiation.
The Catholic Church, however, holds that celibacy is a discipline that it requires of all unmarried men seeking the priesthood.
If you look at the deaconate or the Eastern Churches, if a man is married BEFORE he is ordained, that's fine. However, once ordination occurs, a man cannot get married. Those in the perminate deaconate who lose their wives are not allowed to get remarried- or if they were single upon ordination, the cannot getmarried. The same goes in the Eastern Churches.
I believe what the PP was referring to is the fact that celibacy was not required of Priests until the council of Nicea in the 4th century.

Also pertinent to this conversation, women were not officially banned from priesthood until the Council of Laodicea, also in the 4th centure.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#74 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 05:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
You're seriously quoting Kung? You know he has been stripped of the right to teach theology, right?
So what? That's of no consequence to me. I think Kung is awesome, and spot on in that letter. Many Catholics (including clergy) agree with him. In fact, it was the priest I quoted previously who recommended that everyone should read Kung's Letter to the Bishops.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceandLove
There are married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were pastors in their previous denomiation.
The Catholic Church, however, holds that celibacy is a discipline that it requires of all unmarried men seeking the priesthood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
I believe what the PP was referring to is the fact that celibacy was not required of Priests until the council of Nicea in the 4th century.
Yes, I was referring to the fact that the Church *gasp!* CHANGED something as big as celibacy - and that it can, in fact, change back. Because the celibacy teaching is also not infallible.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#75 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 05:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
There are married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were pastors in their previous denomiation.
I personally know an RC priest who is married (to a divorcee, no less) and is not a convert. In fact, he presided at his grandson's baptism, just this morning!

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#76 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 05:11 PM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm Orthodox. Celibate priests are the exception, not the norm. Until recently, parish priests were all married men. Monks who were also priests tended to serve in monasteries, not parishes. Now, there are some celibate parish priests who are NOT monks, but they are still the exception.

The Latin Church had issues with priestly celibacy into the Middle Ages, regardless of official policy. The priests in what is now the UK were particularly stubborn about giving up their wives.

lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
#77 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 05:24 PM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post
I personally know an RC priest who is married (to a divorcee, no less) and is not a convert. In fact, he presided at his grandson's baptism, just this morning!
I...um... what?!

Proud Catholic transtichel.gif(28) and mama to Vdust.gif (7)

PatienceAndLove is offline  
#78 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 05:36 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post
So what? That's of no consequence to me. I think Kung is awesome, and spot on in that letter. Many Catholics (including clergy) agree with him. In fact, it was the priest I quoted previously who recommended that everyone should read Kung's Letter to the Bishops.





It's of no consequence that the Vatican has removed his right to teach theology, while you are quoting him as a source for such? um ok, that certainly colors the conversation. I'm not surprised in the least that the priest you quoted in the OP recommended him

oh wait, sorry apparently it was a deacon you quoted. still.
Arduinna is offline  
#79 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 06:24 PM
 
PatienceAndLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Meadville, PA
Posts: 1,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
It's of no consequence that the Vatican has removed his right to teach theology, while you are quoting him as a source for such? um ok, that certainly colors the conversation. I'm not surprised in the least that the priest you quoted in the OP recommended him
I agree with you, Arduinna. I am beginning to think that I may need to bow out of this thread.

Proud Catholic transtichel.gif(28) and mama to Vdust.gif (7)

PatienceAndLove is offline  
#80 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 07:50 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
It's of no consequence that the Vatican has removed his right to teach theology, while you are quoting him as a source for such? um ok, that certainly colors the conversation. I'm not surprised in the least that the priest you quoted in the OP recommended him

oh wait, sorry apparently it was a deacon you quoted. still.
Hmmm, maybe he was at one point allowed to teach theology, but lost that ability when the church got upset that he didn't believe in Papal Infallibility. So now, he still knows theology, even if he's not allowed to teach it... Heck, maybe he wasn't even excommunicated or stripped of his title so he is still acknowledged on some level as a man of the Catholic church.

Who knows, that's just what my research tells me.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#81 of 150 Old 07-25-2010, 09:00 PM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Hmmm, maybe he was at one point allowed to teach theology, but lost that ability when the church got upset that he didn't believe in Papal Infallibility. So now, he still knows theology, even if he's not allowed to teach it...
If he does not accept Church theology as true and valid, why would they allow him to teach his own views while maintaining the authority and backing of the Church? If he thinks it's wrong, he certainly has the right to protest, but it is totally unreasonable to expect any organization to support and give official approval of teaching that is antagonistic to their own.
cappuccinosmom is offline  
#82 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 12:32 AM - Thread Starter
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
It's of no consequence that the Vatican has removed his right to teach theology, while you are quoting him as a source for such? um ok, that certainly colors the conversation. I'm not surprised in the least that the priest you quoted in the OP recommended him

oh wait, sorry apparently it was a deacon you quoted. still.
I quoted a priest, in the diocesan newspaper article I referenced. The deacon's quote was from our parish bulletin.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#83 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 01:12 AM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
If he does not accept Church theology as true and valid, why would they allow him to teach his own views while maintaining the authority and backing of the Church? If he thinks it's wrong, he certainly has the right to protest, but it is totally unreasonable to expect any organization to support and give official approval of teaching that is antagonistic to their own.
He considered one (1) thing not true, that was papal infallibility. I guess he just figured that the pope was human like the rest of them.

Interestingly enough, it is yet another thing that has changed in the Catholic church since it's founding. Papal infallibility wasn't considered until the 9th century.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#84 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 10:04 AM
 
BMG580's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
He considered one (1) thing not true, that was papal infallibility. I guess he just figured that the pope was human like the rest of them.

Interestingly enough, it is yet another thing that has changed in the Catholic church since it's founding. Papal infallibility wasn't considered until the 9th century.
Do you actually understand what papal infallibility entails? It isn't that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. It is only in effect in very specific circumstances in which he makes an ex cathedra statement regarding faith and morals.

"Hey, I've got nothin' to do today but smile." - S & G
BMG580 is offline  
#85 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 10:11 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove View Post
You are correct. Mea culpa.
For what it's worth, most Anglicans are well aware that their current lack of unity is a serious problem from many perspectives, including giving us pretty much no high-horse to stand on in inter-denominational issues.

As an Anglican, I wasn't offended as all, and even had a little giggle.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#86 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 10:24 AM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
If everyone sticks to that mind set, then there is no advancement. And yes, the Catholic church can advance but they have no reason to if no one pushes them to.

As for the bolded, that is a very arrogant statement. The same as "if you don't like the president, get out." And really, think about it, if everyone who disagreed with even one part of Catholic teachings left, there would be no Catholicism. There would be no one left to practice the religion. No one is ever going to agree 100% with another person, not even if that other person is the Pope. And really, the Catholic doctrine has already changed over the years on a number of things. There was a time when priests weren't required to be celibate. It used to be that all Catholic Mass' had to be done in Latin, heck there are people alive today who remember that from their childhood. They even changed how scripture is interpreted.

Things change... Even in the Catholic church and according to them, when conflict arises, dialog should occur.
Catholicism though is a Creedal Church - being Catholic depends on certain fundamental beliefs, not where you grew up, or where your family is. In particular, this includes beliefs about the nature of the Church.

While there is a certain element of development of doctrine, Catholicism and other mainline churches teach that the Church has, and always had, the fullness of truth. Practices or traditions may change, or the way of explaining an idea - Tradition does not. Development in doctrine is not a change in doctrine, it is a further explication or application of ideas that already existed.

If a person does not believe this (even if they might argue with particular examples of how it works) then really they do not believe the most fundamental things about what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about itself.

Saying "I don't agree with these fundamental teachings or practice according to them" but wanting to be considered a member who's opinion should be taken into account is a bit like wanting to be a member of the Communist part while not believing in human equality.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#87 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 02:52 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Certain practices can change, but beliefs do not. The Mass has undergone several changes throughout history and is due for some more changes to go in effect next year to better reflect the teachings of the Church and to meet the needs of people in this time. However, the teachings about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ has never changed, and the Mass still includes the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist as was practiced by the early Christians.

The Church has always maintained that ordained men may not go through the Sacrament of Matrimony, but married men may go through the Sacrament of Ordination. The disallowing of married priests was not because of docrtine but for a number of reasons that it was thought to be best. There have always been exceptions. Married priests are common in the Eastern Catholic churches and may one day be common again in the Roman Catholic church.

Other practices have changed as well. People who committed suicide used to be denied Catholic burials. This was because suicide is a mortal sin if committed with full knowledge and consent. This belief did not change, but our understanding of what to do about it developed so that we give people the benefit of the doubt, not knowing what factors lead to the suicide or what reconciliation might have occurred between the act that caused the death and the actual death itself.

Some doctrines have also been defined more clearly, such as defining the Marian dogmas and papal infallibility. These are not new ideas inserted into the Catholic faith, nor are they contrary to anything that has been taught before. They are clarifications of previous teachings and acknowledgements of beliefs commonly held by Catholics.

Even the document being discussed is a slight change of policy. The beliefs that women can't be priests, that sexual abuse is wrong, and that priests may not violate the seal of cofession were all part of our faith before. This document just gave clear procedures on how to deal with these situations because there is a clear need to have a policy in place, especially in the case of sexual exploitation of minors. This is learning from experience. If such a policy had been in place before the offences, many of the repeat offences caused by moving priests around rather than removing them from ministry may have been prevented.

Other changes that occur involve applying Catholic teaching to new experiences and technologies. When the Catholic Church started, cloning wasn't a possibility, there were no Protestants, and the birth control pill had not been invented. New documents came out, and positions were formed on these topics, but these positions were just an explanation of how these new ideas fit with the whole of Catholic theology and how to respond to them. (There's now an easier way for Anglicans to become Catholic, Bluegoat!)

In some cases, theories float around for a while before they are accepted or rejected, at which time Catholics may agree or disagree with the idea before an official teaching is pronounced. Limbo was not officially rejected until quite recently, and the Church has not yet come down on the issue of embryo adoption. (We are pro-adoption and anti-IVF.) In many cases, there are a range of beliefs possible while still being Catholic such as evolution and private revelation.

In recent years, our understanding of homosexuality and the role of women in the Church has developed as well. We have specifically stated that we do not know what causes homosexuality and have declared that mistreatment of homosexual persons is immoral just as the mistreatment of all persons is immoral. This is again not a change in doctrine but a response to people mistreating other people just because they were homosexual, so we needed to define that just because a person is homosexual does not mean that the command to treat others as you would want to be treated disappears.

The role of women has been further defined as well. The Theology of the Body refers to women as "the crown of creation," and many other documents have stressed the importance of women in the Church, and as PatienceAndLove quoted, the question of whether or not women can be priests has been answered once and for all: no.

Once stated definitively, teachings in the Catholic Church DO NOT CHANGE. We are never going to backpeddal and reverse out doctrines. We may find better ways of expressing these doctrines, better ways of ministering to Catholics and relating to non-Catholics, better ways of reconciling sinners, and ways to address the new ideas that come up, but we will not state one thing as definitely true and then turn around and say the opposite. Some other religions may, but not the Catholic Church. When conflict arises, we should dialog about how to deal with it, and progress will be made by deciding better ways to relate to people, with ever more compassion and understanding, not by changing something we already said.
JMJ is offline  
#88 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post
(There's now an easier way for Anglicans to become Catholic, Bluegoat!)


I think it's pretty unlikely though. I have been seriously considering Orthodoxy, but there are some issues I have with Catholicism that would be hard to overcome.

 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#89 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 05:35 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
Do you actually understand what papal infallibility entails? It isn't that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. It is only in effect in very specific circumstances in which he makes an ex cathedra statement regarding faith and morals.
And this man believes that even then the Pope is human.

And before the 9th century, there was no Papal Infallibility.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#90 of 150 Old 07-26-2010, 05:53 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 10,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First, the basic beliefs of the Catholic church come from the bible, which it self changed every time it has been translated. You can't translate from one language to another word for word. You can only get as close to the intended idea as possible.

Second, yes the beliefs have changed, not the belief in God, or The virgin birth, or other things relating to the life of Jesus, but beliefs have changed. There is some indication that prior to the 4th century the belief wasn't that woman couldn't be priests like it is now. Prior to the 9th century, the belief wasn't that of Papal Infallibility. These are not basic beliefs, they are beliefs based on scripture that have been discussed in the past and those discussions led to a different understanding of what the scripture teaches.

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" isn't going to change because there is no disagreement and there for dialog about what the bible says on that. The bible says "you shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" (or some other variation, it's how I remember it from Sunday School. Yeah, believe it or not I was raised Christian).

On the other hand, the decree that woman can't be priests... Show me where is says "Women shall not be priests" in the bible. It doesn't it alludes to the idea, but even among Catholics, it's debated whether these verses specifically prohibit women from be priest, whether they prohibit certain woman from be priests, or if they along with different verses are saying "look as long as she's not causing discourse or neglecting her family, let her be a priest."

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off