Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century

[Mary_Gail_36]

First of all, other posters are proclaiming the Bishops infailable. not me. far from it. I am claiming they ARE failable. That is what we are debating. Second. The cases have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there WAS a cover up. And a shifting around of priest to keep them from prosecution. Intersting that the Church has lost so many civil suits. Do you deny this?

Actually the Church has not lost so many civil suits. That would entail going to trial for each offense and geting a guilty verdict. The Church settled many cases, in order to not have to defend itself in civil cases.

But…crimes get prosecuted in criminal court. A legal system failed as well, if Father molested a child, police should have been notified, arrests made, and DA’s offices should have investigated and prosecuted.

Why didn’t these thing happen?

Is it all the Church’s fault?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First of all, other posters are proclaiming the Bishops infailable. not me. far from it. I am claiming they ARE failable. That is what we are debating. Second. The cases have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there WAS a cover up. And a shifting around of priest to keep them from prosecution. Intersting that the Church has lost so many civil suits. Do you deny this?

Do you want me to post the whole definition of infallibility, which is NOT limited to simply papal infallibility? It would take a lot of post space and it is available on the net.

You still have not shown me definitive proof that ‘the bishops’ knew the priests WOULD abuse, that they knew pedophilia was not curable, and that they moved them ONLY to 'avoid prosecution. Because that is what you are really arguing.

 

[benidict]

Actually the Church has not lost so many civil suits. That would entail going to trial for each offense and geting a guilty verdict. The Church settled many cases, in order to not have to defend itself in civil cases.

But…crimes get prosecuted in criminal court. A legal system failed as well, if Father molested a child, police should have been notified, arrests made, and DA’s offices should have investigated and prosecuted.

Why didn’t these thing happen?

Is it all the Church’s fault?

No. many are to blame. But the Church who claims to be an authority holds much of it. Peace and prayers for you.

 

[benidict]

Do you want me to post the whole definition of infallibility, which is NOT limited to simply papal infallibility? It would take a lot of post space and it is available on the net.

You still have not shown me definitive proof that ‘the bishops’ knew the priests WOULD abuse, that they knew pedophilia was not curable, and that they moved them ONLY to 'avoid prosecution. Because that is what you are really arguing.

Yes. and I believe it has been proven in courts across the country.

 

[wanner47]

First of all, other posters are proclaiming the Bishops infailable. not me. far from it. I am claiming they ARE failable. That is what we are debating. Second. The cases have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there WAS a cover up. And a shifting around of priest to keep them from prosecution. Intersting that the Church has lost so many civil suits. Do you deny this?

You need to read my posts. When bishops TEACH, in concert with the Pope, on issues of faith and morals, they teach infallibly.

Individual bishops are not infallible. The USCCB is not infallible.

As to the can of worms, let’s have at it. Personally, I choose to follow what Jesus said. He promised to protect the Church from teaching error and He has done so. He never promised to protect bishops or popes from sinning. Even Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ three times.

And if the sinfulness of its leaders disbars a Church leader from teaching infallibly, then you have to cease believing in Jesus Christ, because of Judas’ sinfulness.

Also, benidict, I would take out the log in your own denomination’s eye before going after the speck in the Catholic Church’s: www.stopbaptistpredators.org

 

[wanner47]

Yes. and I believe it has been proven in courts across the country.

Proof, please. I’d love to know which court of law declared that they could infallibly read the hearts and minds of individual bishops.

 

[benidict]

You need to read my posts. When bishops TEACH, in concert with the Pope, on issues of faith and morals, they teach infallibly.

Individual bishops are not infallible. The USCCB is not infallible.

As to the can of worms, let’s have at it. Personally, I choose to follow what Jesus said. He promised to protect the Church from teaching error and He has done so. He never promised to protect bishops or popes from sinning. Even Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ three times.

And if the sinfulness of its leaders disbars a Church leader from teaching infallibly, then you have to cease believing in Jesus Christ, because of Judas’ sinfulness.

Also, benidict, I would take out the log in your own denomination’s eye before going after the speck in the Catholic Church’s: www.stopbaptistpredators.org

I am a Catholic who questions. NOT a baptist. And this is really getting silly on your part with your accusations, and taking scripture out of context. I wont let you chase me out of the Church or attempt to get me to change my affiliation, because I can not do so. Ive seen your kind do this to other questioning Catholics on CAF, but its not gonna happen with me. Your welcome to try though. Oh and for the record. There is really no love loss between protestants and myself. Night.

 

[benidict]

Proof, please. I’d love to know which court of law declared that they could infallibly read the hearts and minds of individual bishops.

Wow, you really are hard headed. arent you. Ok, this should be fun. we shall definitely continue this. Its getting very interesting for me.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No. many are to blame. But the Church who claims to be an authority holds much of it. Peace and prayers for you.

So Monsignor Paul at St. Francis Church holds more power than the county’s DA’s office? It’s their job to criminally prosecute. And prosecute Monsignor Paul as well for obstruction of justice.

A guilty verdict in a criminal trial is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

A guilty verdict in a civil case requres a lower standard of proof. A settlement agreement, no trial has taken place, but lawyers bargaining.

1 priest molesting 1 child is an incredible shameful and rotten act.

I don’t see the investigations of sexual crimes on children being something taken seriouslty be society as a whole in the past. Many, as Tantum Ergo pointed out got away with it.

 

[wanner47]

I am a Catholic who questions. NOT a baptist. And this is really getting silly on your part with your accusations, and taking scripture out of context. I wont let you chase me out of the Church or attempt to get me to change my affiliation, because I can not do so. Ive seen your kind do this to other questioning Catholics on CAF, but its not gonna happen with me. Your welcome to try though. Oh and for the record. There is really no love loss between protestants and myself. Night.

My apologies, I thought your post said “baptist” and not “former baptist.”

Actually, you’re not a “Catholic who questions,” you are a “Catholic who protests against the Church’s teaching authority” – a.k.a., a Protestant.

I am, however, a former Protestant (ELCA) who believes 100% in the teaching authority of the Church as established by Jesus Christ.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes. and I believe it has been proven in courts across the country.

Again not proven, settled. Not many trials took place…and not many prosecutions either.

 

[wanner47]

Wow, you really are hard headed. arent you. Ok, this should be fun. we shall definitely continue this. Its getting very interesting for me.

Taunts are not proof, nor are insults.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Taunts are not proof, nor are insults.

No, and claims are not proof. Even if --and it has not happened yet to my knowledge at least here in the U.S. --even if Bishop X stood up in court and said, "Yes, I knew without a doubt that Father A was a pedophile, I knew he was dangerous, I knew he’d abused and I KNEW he’d abuse again, and there was not a thought in my mind other than, I have to get rid of him to protect ME, and I don’t CARE about any of the victims’. . .that STILL would not make the Church imperfect. It would not make bishops be ‘unbishopped’. It would not make the CHURCH teachings false…

I just don’t get how some otherwise intelligent people can so totally bypass logic once their emotions get involved. How so many reasonably knowledgeable people --with for pete’s sake the entire INTERNET to educate them at the touch of a mouse-- seem to have less common sense and reasoning ability than the average school child. It’s as though there’s some kind of mental block that comes down and says, “If you can find any Catholic person, especially a clergyperson, who has sinned, you can thereby invalidate the entire Catholic Church and all its teachings based on that sinful person”. . .and they then proceed to make every argument as though that is the proven FACT. That, 'hey, I have accused Father A or Bishop Y or that Catholic lady in Peoria of sinning! Therefore, your whole Catholic Church is nothing but lies and we win, bwa ha ha". . .

 

[Rock_Happy]

Of course they didn’t. And Rock and his friends quite conveniently omit mentioning that the majority of the cases that were 'covered’up in the U.S. anyway occurred in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when the AMA (that’s the American Medical Association) and the APA (that’s the American Psychological Association) believed, taught, and practiced that pedophilia was CURABLE, and also (and the legal profession backed them up, not just in ‘the Church’ but in society at large) that the only ‘fair’ way to deal with a “CURED” pedophile (or alcoholic, or addict) was to send them off to a NEW place with a CLEAN slate lest they be ‘prejudged’.

This occurred not just in the Catholic church but in protestant churches, temples, in schools, in businesses, and in HOMES where the abuser was allowed to ‘come back’ and supposed to be treated as though the abuse hadn’t happened.

Massive ‘coverups’ through every fabric of society based on the definition of AD 2011. . .‘prescribed medical treatment’ for the definition of AD 1970. But if we actually took the time to accept this, instead of screaming that it was a "CATHOLIC problem’ we’d have to accept that not just our doctors but our lawyers, judges, indeed, everyone in authority in 1970. . .was WRONG.

And that won’t do. Not if we can use the Church as a scapegoat and pretend this kind of thing didn’t happen. Not if we instead on pretending that the bishop in 1970 had exactly the understanding and knowledge we have today.

I am NOT excusing the few–and it is a few, sadly–who really did cross the line. Still less am I excusing the people who did these crimes.

But it is a hard fact that many of the bishops who ‘transferred’ priests are DEAD. Guess what? We don’t KNOW what they knew, what they ‘felt’.

We DO know that the doctors and lawyers back in 1980, 1970, 1960, etc. told a very, very different story from the one they teach today.

Only the Catholic Church has been big enough and moral enough to come forward, to make restitution, from every member up through the Pope. . .and we’re still being bled white. . .

Ask me how many abusive fathers from that same time period are paying ANYTHING to the children THEY raped and the families THEY destroyed. . . Oh no. In fact, if you weren’t molested by a priest, forget it! You’ll be ostradized, you’ll be treated like dirt. . .

God help the children, but the way these sanctimonious "Catholic priest bashers’ are acting is in NO way helping the children or anybody else. They’re making things worse because they aren’t addressing the REAL PROBLEM which has nothing to do with Catholic priests or Catholicism. . .

Hold on there Tantrum Ego, the latest coverup effort was by the Vatican in refusing to cooperate with British authorities. This was in the news this year. The immoral behavior (in my opinion) continues. This is precisely why my neighbor rolled her eyes up into her head when I brought of the subject of the Pope with her the other day.

 

[Rock_Happy]

So… when are papal bulls considered infallible? Here are some summarized regarding the Church’s opinion of Jews. Would those who believe that the Church has not changed its moral teachings over time then agree that all of these bulls fail to contradict each other, and also are in accord with current teachings? This is 500 years worth of papal bulls on Jews. There are also quite a few during this period on neophytes, dowries…

Honorius III
Ad nostram Noveritis audientiam
April 29, 1221
Jews are obliged to carry a distinctive badge and forbidden to hold public office.

Gregory IX
Sufficere debuerat perfidioe judoerum perfidia
March 5, 1233
Jews forbidden to employ Christian servants.

Innocent IV
Impia judoerum perfidia
May 9, 1244
French King ordered to burn the Talmud. Jews forbidden to employ Christian nurses.

Benedict XIII
(Anti-Pope)
Etsi doctoribus gentium
1415
A collection of anti-Jewish church legislation that served as an inspiration to other Popes.

Martin V
Sedes apostolica
June 3, 1425
Jews obliged to wear distinctive badge.

Eugene IV
Dudum ad nostram audientiam
Aug. 4, 1442
Forbade Jews to live with Christians or fill public functions, etc.

Calixtus III
Si ad reprimendos
May 28, 1456
Confirmed the preceding Bull of Eugene IV forbidding Jews to live with Christians.

Sixtus IV
Numquam dubitavimus
1482
To Ferdinand of Aragon, to appoint inquisitors to extirpate heresy and investigate backsliding of Jewish converts to Christianity. The Spanish
Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain followed.

Paul IV
Cum Nimis Absurdum
July 14, 1555
Jews forbidden to live in common with Christians, to practice any industry, etc

Pius IV
Dudum e felicis recordationis
Feb. 27, 1562
Bull confirming that of Paul IV.

Pius V
Romanus Pontifex
April 19, 1566
Bull confirming that of Paul IV

Pius V
Cum nos nuper
Jan. 19, 1567
Jews are forbidden to own real estate

Pius V
Hebraeorum gens
Feb. 26, 1569
Accuses Jews of many evils including magic. Orders expulsion of Jews from Church States except Rome and Ancona.

Gregory XIII
Sancta Mater Ecclesiae
Sept. 1, 1584
Obligatory preaching of Christian sermons to Jews;100 men and 50 women must be sent every Saturday to listen to conversion sermons delivered in a church near the ghetto.

Sixtus V
Christiana pietas
Oct. 22, 1586
Privileges granted to Jews by relief of former edicts. These were reversed. by Clemen VIII.

Clement VIII
Cum saepe accidere
Feb. 28, 1592
Jews of Avignon forbidden to sell new goods.

Clement VIII
Caeca et obdurata
Feb. 25, 1593
Confirmation of the Bull of Paul III. Jews forbidden to dwell outside of Rome, Ancona, and Avignon.

Clement VIII
Cum Haebraeorum malitia
Feb. 28, 1593
It is forbidden to read the Talmud.

Innocent XIII
Ex injuncto nobis
Jan. 18, 1724
Prohibits sale of new objects.

Benedict XIII
Emanavit nuper
Feb. 14, 1727
Necessary conditions for imposing baptism on a Jew.

Benedict XIII
Alias emanarunt
March 21, 1729
Forbidding the sale of new goods.

 

[Rock_Happy]

So… when are papal bulls considered infallible? Here are some summarized regarding the Church’s opinion of Jews. Would those who believe that the Church has not changed its moral teachings over time then agree that all of these bulls fail to contradict each other, and also are in accord with current teachings? This is only 500 years worth.

Honorius III
Ad nostram Noveritis audientiam
April 29, 1221
Jews are obliged to carry a distinctive badge and forbidden to hold public office.

Gregory IX
Sufficere debuerat perfidioe judoerum perfidia
March 5, 1233
Jews forbidden to employ Christian servants.

Innocent IV
Impia judoerum perfidia
May 9, 1244
French King ordered to burn the Talmud. Jews forbidden to employ Christian nurses.

Benedict XIII
(Anti-Pope)
Etsi doctoribus gentium
1415
A collection of anti-Jewish church legislation that served as an inspiration to other Popes.

Martin V
Sedes apostolica
June 3, 1425
Jews obliged to wear distinctive badge.

Eugene IV
Dudum ad nostram audientiam
Aug. 4, 1442
Forbade Jews to live with Christians or fill public functions, etc.

Calixtus III
Si ad reprimendos
May 28, 1456
Confirmed the preceding Bull of Eugene IV forbidding Jews to live with Christians.

Sixtus IV
Numquam dubitavimus
1482
To Ferdinand of Aragon, to appoint inquisitors to extirpate heresy and investigate backsliding of Jewish converts to Christianity. The Spanish
Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews from Spain followed.

Paul IV
Cum Nimis Absurdum
July 14, 1555
Jews forbidden to live in common with Christians, to practice any industry, etc

Pius IV
Dudum e felicis recordationis
Feb. 27, 1562
Bull confirming that of Paul IV.

Pius V
Romanus Pontifex
April 19, 1566
Bull confirming that of Paul IV

Pius V
Cum nos nuper
Jan. 19, 1567
Jews are forbidden to own real estate

Pius V
Hebraeorum gens
Feb. 26, 1569
Accuses Jews of many evils including magic. Orders expulsion of Jews from Church States except Rome and Ancona.

Gregory XIII
Sancta Mater Ecclesiae
Sept. 1, 1584
Obligatory preaching of Christian sermons to Jews;100 men and 50 women must be sent every Saturday to listen to conversion sermons delivered in a church near the ghetto.

Sixtus V
Christiana pietas
Oct. 22, 1586
Privileges granted to Jews by relief of former edicts. These were reversed. by Clemen VIII.

Clement VIII
Cum saepe accidere
Feb. 28, 1592
Jews of Avignon forbidden to sell new goods.

Clement VIII
Caeca et obdurata
Feb. 25, 1593
Confirmation of the Bull of Paul III. Jews forbidden to dwell outside of Rome, Ancona, and Avignon.

Clement VIII
Cum Haebraeorum malitia
Feb. 28, 1593
It is forbidden to read the Talmud.

Innocent XIII
Ex injuncto nobis
Jan. 18, 1724
Prohibits sale of new objects.

Benedict XIII
Emanavit nuper
Feb. 14, 1727
Necessary conditions for imposing baptism on a Jew.

Benedict XIII
Alias emanarunt
March 21, 1729
Forbidding the sale of new goods.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hold on there Tantrum Ego, the latest coverup effort was by the Vatican in refusing to cooperate with British authorities. This was in the news this year. The immoral behavior (in my opinion) continues. This is precisely why my neighbor rolled her eyes up into her head when I brought of the subject of the Pope with her the other day.

You mean because of some newspaper article (and the media has such a STERLING track record of getting religious news, NOT just Catholic religious news, right. ). . .the article itself with absolutely not a SHRED of proof that the Pope was involved in any kind of coverup but just somebody yammering. . .this constitutes some kind of proof of wrongdoing?

Good lord. I hope your neighbor is never summoned for jury duty. I mean, aren’t people innocent until proven guilty. . .not 'guilty if some article says something unproven about somebody–anybody–! in the Catholic Church, therefore the whole edifice is a sham. . .

And as I have said before but apparently it still isn’t getting through. . .

EVEN IF somebody ‘high’ in the clergy PERSONALLY SINNED, that does not, in any way, shape or form equate to “The Catholic Church is teaching sin.”

We aren’t Donatists.

Heck, Judas PERSONALLY sinned. Did that invalidate the office of Disciple? I mean, hey, one out of twelve. They must all be personal sinners, therefore, everything they teach as disciples must be wrong. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So… when are papal bulls considered infallible? Here are some summarized regarding the Church’s opinion of Jews. Would those who believe that the Church has not changed its moral teachings over time then agree that all of these bulls fail to contradict each other, and also are in accord with current teachings? This is 500 years worth of papal bulls on Jews. There are also quite a few during this period on neophytes, dowries…

Open a separate thread. We’ve already veered off course with the priests. This thread is about changing teachings on sex in the 19th century.

If you want to find out about Papal bulls might I suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia at
www.newadvent.org.

 

[Rock_Happy]

You mean because of some newspaper article (and the media has such a STERLING track record of getting religious news, NOT just Catholic religious news, right. ). . .the article itself with absolutely not a SHRED of proof that the Pope was involved in any kind of coverup but just somebody yammering. . .this constitutes some kind of proof of wrongdoing?

Good lord. I hope your neighbor is never summoned for jury duty. I mean, aren’t people innocent until proven guilty. . .not 'guilty if some article says something unproven about somebody–anybody–! in the Catholic Church, therefore the whole edifice is a sham. . .

And as I have said before but apparently it still isn’t getting through. . .

EVEN IF somebody ‘high’ in the clergy PERSONALLY SINNED, that does not, in any way, shape or form equate to “The Catholic Church is teaching sin.”

We aren’t Donatists.

Heck, Judas PERSONALLY sinned. Did that invalidate the office of Disciple? I mean, hey, one out of twelve. They must all be personal sinners, therefore, everything they teach as disciples must be wrong. . .

I did not say that the Pope made the decision. I have no idea how it came down. It was, however, widely reported that the Church refused to cooperate with the authorities, and that it was claiming diplomatic immunity. Was this report false? I know that this is a touchy subject, but there is no need to be defensive. Everyone understands that institutions have problems, and that one as large as the Church might have “employees” who don’t act according to policy. How the Church handled the problem is relevant to its moral authority, though, in my opinion. That is why I brought it up in a thread which touches on the topic of whether the Church changes its moral teachings.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also, Rock, it is rather. . .um, shall we say interesting. . .that you post this ‘list’ of Popes, dates, and a ‘summary’ of what was said. . .without giving the actual bulls themselves?

May one inquire exactly where you ‘got’ that list from?

If YOU made it all yourself, mind posting the bulls in their entirety? (Since you must have read them all in order to make your own summary).

If you DIDN"T make that list yourself as I said we would be VERY interested to know where it ‘came from’. . .