K
KevinK
Guest
McCarrick could not have operated alone for so long.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vouthon
Guest
God is not only perfect in His mercy, He is also perfect in His justice. We love even serial killers, we pray for their conversion to good and defend their right to life as human beings made in God’s image, and ask that they still be treated with dignity - but behind bars, to protect the public while they still pose a threat, and to let them reflect on their crimes before death in the hope of salvation.
But we do not ignore the demands of justice and the requirement of restitution to victims, or promote leniency towards manifest evil. Surely, this is the first step in any rehabilitation?
In the contemporary church, do we forget that actions which seriously violate God’s law carry real consequences and require penance?
McCarrick - while I will not pass judgement on his interior state of mind and soul - has denied the very same charges that the church tribunal and Pope have found credible enough to laicize him. As such, he has done nothing exteriorly to make restitution to the victims, young boys and men at the time whose bodies he violated without their consent.
Do you recall what the Apostle Paul instructed the early church in Corinth to do in relation to a known and notorious sexual pervert (in this case incestuous) in the congregation? He was hardly “lenient”. He commands the church to excommunicate the offender:
Those who abuse the authority given to them, and trample on the rights of the vulnerable under their care, are particularly condemned by Jesus:
But we do not ignore the demands of justice and the requirement of restitution to victims, or promote leniency towards manifest evil. Surely, this is the first step in any rehabilitation?
In the contemporary church, do we forget that actions which seriously violate God’s law carry real consequences and require penance?
McCarrick - while I will not pass judgement on his interior state of mind and soul - has denied the very same charges that the church tribunal and Pope have found credible enough to laicize him. As such, he has done nothing exteriorly to make restitution to the victims, young boys and men at the time whose bodies he violated without their consent.
Do you recall what the Apostle Paul instructed the early church in Corinth to do in relation to a known and notorious sexual pervert (in this case incestuous) in the congregation? He was hardly “lenient”. He commands the church to excommunicate the offender:
1 Corinthians 5:1-8
We must be especially hard on such behaviour when it occurs in our clergy, because scripture tells us that: “Not many of you should become teachers,my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 1:3).It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans…
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgement in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord…
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral… Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Those who abuse the authority given to them, and trample on the rights of the vulnerable under their care, are particularly condemned by Jesus:
Luke 17:1-3:Matthew 20
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you.
Jesus said: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
Last edited:
G
Gabika50
Guest
But he cannot do mass or use these titles however; interesting.
GospelOfMatthew
New member
Nobody is saying we shouldn’t. We all know what he did was horrible. I’m saying we don’t need to continue to state the obvious. What we do need to state is that he needs prayers, which isn’t obvious as opposed to what he did which is obvious
V
Vouthon
Guest
It may be ‘obvious’ but judging by the manner in which certain quarters of our church have dealt with perpetrators of abuse in the past, particularly among the hierarchy, and the resulting scandals worldwide that have brought calumny on our faith, I would not be so hasty to declare that it is obvious that we should not treat perpetrators leniently. It should be, but it clearly hasn’t been, although this laicization is a step in the right direction towards a policy of zero tolerance.
Were it obvious, then we’d have had no cover-ups in the first place.
Were it obvious, then we’d have had no cover-ups in the first place.
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew
New member
What he has done has always been obviously wrong once discovered. Those who “covered it up” knew it was obviously wrong, that is why they covered it up.
We are speaking past each other, we both agree but expressing it in different ways
We are speaking past each other, we both agree but expressing it in different ways
V
Vouthon
Guest
I concur, but I would like to respectfully correct you on one point, if I may: I am talking about how we respond to, deal with and speak about abusers (i.e. in my opinion, often with far too much lenience than is warranted), not about the obvious criminality and evil of the abuse itself - which, I am naturally aware, all reasonable people would condemn.
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew
New member
But we are also called to love sinners while denouncing and hating sin. Loving sinners requires a focus on prayer, mercy, and forgiveness. It does not focus on condemnation and judgement. Justice is served by Jesus at the Final Judgement, I will leave the judgement up to Him
V
Vouthon
Guest
Then this is where I disagree. Did you read the passage from 1 Corinthians that I quoted?
Loving the sinner, and seeking a path of rehabilitation for him or her, should not involve leniency towards the sin (especially if it is something as grave as abuse of minors), or result in failure to see that justice is served if harm has been wrought to others, without restitution. St. Paul exercised judgement on the unrepentant, sexually perverted man who had brought scandal to the Corinthian church and indeed called for him to be excommunicated. The scripture makes this abundantly clear in the language used.
Loving the sinner, and seeking a path of rehabilitation for him or her, should not involve leniency towards the sin (especially if it is something as grave as abuse of minors), or result in failure to see that justice is served if harm has been wrought to others, without restitution. St. Paul exercised judgement on the unrepentant, sexually perverted man who had brought scandal to the Corinthian church and indeed called for him to be excommunicated. The scripture makes this abundantly clear in the language used.
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew
New member
I never mentioned leniency towards the sin. I said we must denounce and hate the sin. We must condemn the sin. This is what we do as members of the body of the Church, we are called to live out the Gospel of Life, and do so through our actions. We must strive to stay away from sin and evangelize to those that need help in their sin.
But I as a sinful man, will not pronounce judgement (by this I mean eternal judgement) on this person. He is a grave sinner. I am a grave sinner. While my sins do not compare to his in the slightest way, we are not the one that judges the gravity of sins, that is up to Jesus. One small sin for me could be a massive sin for you (those given much, much is expected).
He was given much by definition of his vocation and holy orders. As such very much is expected of him. He needs our prayers and we have a duty as part of the body of Christ to pray for sinners. It pains God just as much when the worst sinner goes to hell than when a righteous person goes to hell. And yet, God would feel greater joy for the grave sinner to return to Him then to have the righteous person never leave (lost sheep, Prodical Son)
But I as a sinful man, will not pronounce judgement (by this I mean eternal judgement) on this person. He is a grave sinner. I am a grave sinner. While my sins do not compare to his in the slightest way, we are not the one that judges the gravity of sins, that is up to Jesus. One small sin for me could be a massive sin for you (those given much, much is expected).
He was given much by definition of his vocation and holy orders. As such very much is expected of him. He needs our prayers and we have a duty as part of the body of Christ to pray for sinners. It pains God just as much when the worst sinner goes to hell than when a righteous person goes to hell. And yet, God would feel greater joy for the grave sinner to return to Him then to have the righteous person never leave (lost sheep, Prodical Son)
V
Vouthon
Guest
I would be much obliged, if you could give me your interpretation of what St. Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 5:1-8?
This too, is part of Sacred Scripture and so we cannot overlook it. Do you think that St. Paul failed to show love for the man involved or failed to be concerned for his salvation?
Also, I would like to clarify that I never said anything about casting “eternal judgement”. Obviously, I do not want McCarrick or anyone to be damned and I sincerely hope (and pray) that God will forgive him for what he has done, and that he has or will repent.
But this is not actually relevant to the point that I am making, which is concerned with how we are to respond to him and other clergy charged with sexual abuse in the here and now.
The passage again:
This too, is part of Sacred Scripture and so we cannot overlook it. Do you think that St. Paul failed to show love for the man involved or failed to be concerned for his salvation?
Also, I would like to clarify that I never said anything about casting “eternal judgement”. Obviously, I do not want McCarrick or anyone to be damned and I sincerely hope (and pray) that God will forgive him for what he has done, and that he has or will repent.
But this is not actually relevant to the point that I am making, which is concerned with how we are to respond to him and other clergy charged with sexual abuse in the here and now.
The passage again:
1 Corinthians 5:1-8
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans…
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgement in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord…
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral… Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew
New member
Seems to be condemning the sin and saying we should get someone out of a position where they are committing sinful behaviors. I have no disagreements here. What will happen in terms of punishment will happen.
He needs prayers.
He needs prayers.
V
Vouthon
Guest
OK, thanks!
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Yes. That’s what ‘laicisation’ means.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
The sacrament would be valid, but illicit. THAT being said, he could, say, hear a confession if someone was about to die and he was the only “priest” available. THAT would be completely appropriate.
S
seaton2005
Guest
How could this man disgrace God, the Church, and himself. The pope did administered the correct punishment by removing him forever from ministry. He should not be allowed to administer any sacraments, he has dishonored himself and God, and the Church. He’s lucky there has not been a criminal inquiry into his behavior. Maybe there should, maybe?
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Lets not forget the victims who need prayers as well. Including all of us who have been scandalized by this. The Church and leadership needs prayers as well to rid the Church of these evils and provide the wisdom and strength to face the truth. McCarrick is pretty far down on my ol list.
T
TomH1
Guest
He can no longer say Mass at all.McCarrick is no longer allowed to say Mass. Does this mean that he is no longer allowed to publicly say Mass, or no longer allowed to celebrate Mass at all?
They may celebrate everyday but they are not obliged to do so. They are obliged to say the Liturgy of the Hours (a.k.a. Divine Office or Breviary) every day but McCarrick will no longer have this obligation.I thought that, once ordained, priests were required to celebrate Mass every day
It is permanent. I read on a priest’s blog that an ordained man remains ordained even when he is in heaven or the other place. If an ordained man is laicised he cannot do the things an ordained man can do, e.g. he can’t celebrate Mass, can’t officiate at Marriage, can’t hear confessions. There’s an exception, which is for the benefit of the person in danger of death not the laicised cleric, a laicised cleric can administer absolution, anointing and communion to a person in danger of death.the sacrament of ordination is permanent like baptism or confirmation.
T
TomH1
Guest
A priest requires the power of order and jurisdiction to hear confessions. The former he receives when he is ordained. The latter is granted to him by his ordinary and this is called ‘faculties’. A bishop, as McCarrick was, is granted the faculty to grant absolution anywhere by canon law, unless the local bishop says he cannot. A cardinal, which McCarrick was, can grant absolution anywhere whether the local bishop objects or not. But, once laicised a cleric loses the necessary jurisdiction to grant absolution. Therefore, if McCarrick, or any other laicised priest or bishop, granted you absolution it would be invalid. They can grant absolution to a person in danger of death because canon law grants the necessary faculty in those circumstances.whereas hearing a confession in a non-emergency situation would be valid but illicit.
T
TomH1
Guest
I believe not. Although laicised he may still be bound by the impediment of sacred orders. Also although laicised he may still be bound to celibacy. That has to be granted separately from laicisation and it is not always granted. I remember during the pontificate of Pope St John Paul II it was often said he would grant laicisations but would not release the former cleric from the requirements of celibacy.Would mcCarrick be free to marry? Often you hear that one could marry after returned to a laicized state. I’m sure it’s not on the table but cannonically, could he?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.