North_Ranger
Staff member
Now that's a load of bull.
The Pope resigns
- Thread starter LordRendar
- Start date
- Status
No one hates jews enough for his taste.
Really???
Considering that many of those other things are probably the things they're infighting about....
figmentPez
Staff member
This made me laugh far harder than it should have:
I dunno... they seemed to think last year that the most important thing they could do, as a church (at least for the US arm of the church) was to go back to performing more of the service in the original Latin.
No, they used a better interpretation of the Latin. So all the call and response stuff sounds funny after my lifetime's worth of hearing it one way.
This! so much this.
Ahh... that's what it was. All I knew was what I heard on the radio, I haven't actually attended mass in... too many years to remember.
I still go when I visit my parents.
The only time my parents set foot in a church is for a wedding or a funeral. They've been unhappy with the church ever since one of their parish priests refused to provide a character witness for their being named godparents for one of their friend's babies. The priest refused because he "could not, in good conscience, testify that two people were good Catholics when they didn't attend church every Sunday" no matter the fact that, while it was true that they didn't go every Sunday, they did attend Christmas mass, Easter mass, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and a host of other church holidays; and they'd had me enrolled in Sunday school for years, I'd gone through First Communion, Confirmation (at that specific church, no less), Baccalaureate Mass, and whatever other rites we had; and that they'd been involved in church fundraising, communal meals, etc. for years and years, all at that specific church. And, while it's kind of petty to turn your back on an entire church because of one priest, the rest of the chain of command backed that priest, regardless of the recommendations of other priests in the diocese (we had a rotating priest situation because we were a really small town, and we'd moved from a larger town where we'd had a different priest who was willing to testify to their good standing in the church). That and, you know, the whole sex abuse scandal.
Quite fascinating. If anything, it reinforces the cardinal rule of bureaucracy: It tries to continue to exist. Even if the guy at the top is trying to reform, the bureaucracy itself will continually push back. It's really hard to do.
"Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Dave
Staff member
He pretty much IS home. He won't leave the Vatican. Why? He doesn't know if he's able to be prosecuted for his part in the child abuse scandals. He even wrote to the Italian president saying that as a former pope he's got diplomatic immunity. You can't make this stuff up.
He doesn't get diplomatic immunity unless the countries he visits agree to it. He has to present his credentials to the host government and hope they accept it. If not, he's declared persona non gratis and forced to leave the country.
So yeah... he's not leaving Vatican City unless he becomes an official ambassador or something.
So yeah... he's not leaving Vatican City unless he becomes an official ambassador or something.
Does anyone wonder how many hundreds of years it will be before a pope allows priests/cardinals/wizards to marry? I'm guessing 3.
The issue is brought up more often than you might think. There was a Brother* from my hometown who argued before the Senate that priests should be allowed to marry and women should be allowed to be priests just a few years ago. There are significant groups within the clergy that support these reforms.
*I think. Possibly he was a Father.
There aren't Catholic priestesses? That shit ain't right. Not as bad as the Catholic church covering up years of pedophilia, but its up there.
Speaking of pedophilia, would the allowing of priests to marriage theoretically stop molestation in the church?
Speaking of pedophilia, would the allowing of priests to marriage theoretically stop molestation in the church?
Some people make this argument but I mean... It's not like there aren't married paedophiles. :\ It's such a sad issue. I mean, it's easy to crack jokes and lob cynical criticism but obviously these people are succumbing to an awful lust, not getting the help they need to cope with that and destroying lives of children and their families, hell, communities, in the process. The whole thing makes me feel awful.
More specifically about marriage solving molestation, I think that the pragmatic argument is: obviously not. I think if they wanted to have sexual relationships with women/men they could easily find consenting partners: it's not like there isn't a history of cardinals and popes and priests of every stripe having mistresses and illegitimate children. So, I think, no, the molestation is probably not simply a sexual urge that is otherwise suppressed and could be resolved by marriage. But, maybe I am wrong. I am not speaking from any sort of research.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" might be a cliché, but I believe it. That's the best I hope for right now, I guess. Transparency and accountability. They should be brought before a court, not hidden, not transferred.
GasBandit
Staff member
That was a stand up routine I heard 10 years ago or so. But yeah.. No female catholic priests. And they're not the only ones. There are actually a number of faiths which don't allow females to become ordained. Orthodox Jews have this stick in their craw as well, though all the other denominations of Judaism allow female rabbis.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I've always wondered... how do you make that destinction? When does a frater become a pater?
They don't. You're one or the other, the distinction is their role in the clergy. A Brother usually has a 'teaching' role within the Church: maybe as a professor in a theological college, maybe educating communities. They often take vows of poverty, and live in a rectory with other Brothers of same order (I'm most familiar with Franciscans). They also try to be active with people, going over for dinners, sharing time, listening, enjoying the company of people (usually Catholics, obviously, but any I've met have happily come over and debated atheism with me over wine
)Fathers are priests, basically. They have a leadership role, passing on the teachings of Christ and delivering mass, performing the Eucharist, etc. Of course they too are active in the community, but in a different way. And I've never had any over for dinner.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Huh. Now I know. Plus, I think I've met one of those Brothers myself. Older guy, taught an introductory course on Celtic mythology in the college where I studied during my foreign exchange year. Bit of a loonie (such as suggesting that dragons come from a racial memory of dinosaurs), but still an interesting fellow.
Hah! Excellent. ..."bit" of a loon might be a generous interpretation
I know a Brother, 86, who starts off every first-year course with new students hoping to become priests by referring to God as "Her", just so, in his words "They think I'm a crazy radical. Keeps them on their toes."
North_Ranger
Staff member
HA! That's just awesome!
And I'll keep using the "bit". He was still a nice guy, and knew his stuff. Heck, he even took us on a field trip to see Celtic ruins near the city, and didn't mind silly questions from a bunch of foreign students (who formed the majority of his class).
And I'll keep using the "bit". He was still a nice guy, and knew his stuff. Heck, he even took us on a field trip to see Celtic ruins near the city, and didn't mind silly questions from a bunch of foreign students (who formed the majority of his class).
I don't think being a member of the clergy (and the accompanying vows of celibacy) makes one into a pedophile. Rather, I think pedophiles are attracted to the clergy in large numbers because it provides easier access to victims while simultaneously providing some cover/protection.
Dragon Slayers were the first Paleontologists...[DOUBLEPOST=1361285340][/DOUBLEPOST]
There are still a lower ratio of pedophiles in the church than there is in the general population. The problem was the hush money and then shuffling the pedos off to another parish, to find more victims.
figmentPez
Staff member
I agree with this. There's no fixing the problem without bringing it all out in the light. The only way allowing married priests helps this issue is if it brings in a greater number of new priests who wouldn't otherwise be willing to serve as clergy. Even that might not make much of a difference, depending on why there was such cover-ups in the first place. If the system is just too corrupt, then it's just going to self perpetuate until it collapses. If, however, the cover-ups were out of fear more than corruption (i.e. we're too short on priests as it is, we can't have this thinning our ranks), then increased numbers might help, but even then I doubt it. Personally I don't think there's much hope for the Roman Catholic Church to turn things around.
I'm sure there've been pedophiles who became membvers of clergy for this reason, but I doubt it.
I think that, fort a large part, people are thinking too much in absolutes about sexuality still. Among soldiers, holed up in a fortress/the lines/Vietnam camps, sailors on long voyages from home, etc, homosexual behavior was (and is) far more prevalent than amongst the general population. Your reasoning would be: gay people join the army because that gives them more access to well-trained guys.
I think it's the other way around: after months/years of frustration, you lower your sights. If you're at sea for 6 months with no women around, the guy next to you might start to look a bit more appealing. After years in a church withn o possibility of release, that 12 year old choirboy may start to look a bit better.
Mind you that I'm not equating homosexuality and pedophilia, I'm just drawing a comparison. Also, it's not because you fucked the guy next to you in the trenches that you've suddenly been gay your whole life and hiding it, though I personally believe nobody's 100% straight or gay... In the same vein, I don't think these people would have been pedophiles no matter what - in normal life, or if sex/marriage was allowed to priests, they may have been perfectly happy with a woman (or man, as the case may be). Circumstances can have a serious impact.
I do not, in any way, think this makes what they did any less bad or anything - I'd expect anyone to be able to control their baser urges, priests most of all. You can't be handing out moral guidance, expect people not to stray, if you can't even control your own basest desires. Circumstances may have played a role, they still should have been able to restrain themselves.
I'm firmly convinced that allowing marriage would reduce the number of pedophile priests. You'd probably still get one occasionally, just like there are pedophiles in the general population, but hopefully, less.
Yeah, no. That's not how pedophiles work at all.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could go my whole life without sex and not want to molest any kids.
It isn't how homosexuality works, either. Or bestiality. But there are more homosexual contacts in situations where heterosexual contact is not available, and there are more interspecies sexual contacts when no human sexual contact is possible.
I'm not saying pedophilia only happens because the guy can't get a girl. Or even that most pedophiles are like that. Or anything. I'm saying that some of these pedophile priests might, either, have been able to suppress that specific urge, or might not have felt the urge strong enought o even register in the first place.
Let's make the statement stronger and get even more people to disagree with me, because hey, shitstorms are fun. I'm firmly of the belief that pedosexuality, just like homosexuality, just like furriness, just like bestiality, or asexuality, or heterosexuality, or half-a-dozen other sexual preferences, is not a binary thing, but a sliding scale. I'm also of the belief that the preference is not necessarily something you can do about. People have been tryingto "convert" homosexuals since long before either of us was born. Some gay people marry and have children and so on to push back their own urges and to deny themselves. Doesn't make them any more or less homosexual.
The reason why pedosexuality or bestiality are not acceptable, whereas, say, "interracial" coupling (by which I mean "people of seemingly different ethnicity) or homosexuality are acceptable, to me, is a matter of informed consent. A child, or animal, or some of the more heavily mentally handicapped, are not capable of consenting, and hence, cannot enter into a balanced sexual relationship. Any sexual relationship is, therefore, abuse at the very least.
This is very important. A lot of people are afraid of the slippery slope: first we allowed people to marry outside their social status, then skin colour, then... now it's outside of the "proper" gender roles, next up children and after that animals and so on and so on. I'm of the opinion that there is no such slippery slope because, to me, the line is clear and well-drawn (with the possible exception of mentally handicapped: I have some issues but I'm capable of consent, whereas some others have a comparative mental age of 1 or 2 - they're clearly incapable...But where do you draw that line?): honest, open, freely given and informed consent by all partners? That's a "fair" relationship that can work (there are obviously still a lot of other factors at work; you know full well I'm not asserting there's no abuse in such a relationship or that such relationships are always good or balanced. Very far from it). One partner who can't give consent? Stay the fuck away from him/her/it/... .
In this sense, I'm convinced a pedosexual can't be "blamed" for being sexually attracted to children. He can be blamed for not seeking help and controlling his urges. "I couldn't restrain myself" isn't an excuse for rape amongst heterosexuals, it isn't an excuse amongst anything else. You're aware that what you're doing is wrong, don't do it.
All of this is aimed at people who are sexually attracted to children. It is not targeted at people who prey on children because they are weak/incapable of resisting/psychological damage from their youth/whatever, who can often engage in sexual acts with children, while actually being hardly or not sexually attracted to children - similar to men raping men in war scenarios, while maintaining their heterosexuality. Whole 'nother kettle of fish. There we're talking about sociopaths, psychopaths or otherwise deranged individuals.
Mind experiment if you're going to disagree about consent being the issue: if we put the mind of an adult in a child's body, could that person have sex with someone without it being wrong? If not, where does it start or stop? Plenty of 40-year-old women have no hips, small-to-no breasts, shave away their pubes, etc etc. Where else but in consent can you draw a line, that's not based out of religion or personal preference?
- Status