Don’t dare to speak its name

[MikeWM]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Do you have children?
I do not trust any adult to be alone with my children. I stay with them.

I don’t have children no, and if I did, while I would be very careful with them, I wouldn’t over-protect. How old are your children? Have you seriously never left them alone with another adult? Not a childminder? Not when the teacher keeps them back for detention?

And why do you think that healthy suspicion can be taken too far? It’s healthy afterall.

It’s healthy until taken too far. If you never let your kids climb a tree or ride a bike down the road, I think you’re protecting them too much.

I teach my kids what is inappropriate. What to do if something doesn’t seem right. However, that doesn’t mean that I would stick them into a bad situation. Michael Jackson was found innocent, but I still wouldn’t let my kids go to Neverland to test how well they learned the lesson.

Well, no, I wouldn’t do that either. Michael Jackson has exhibited very suspicious behaviour, whether or not he was technically innocent of the specific charges he faced.

I actually do not have boys. But in our society it is suppose to be okay for men to be trusted with boys. Why do we not feel that it is okay for men to escort young girls for sleepovers?

shrugs I don’t see any problem with it, so I can’t tell you.

If the church takes the Homosexuals out of the mix, to the best of their ability, the good priests will not be looked at sideways when they hug a child.

Well, that is useful. So the actual paedophiles will get away scot-free without any suspicion because aim was taken at the homosexuals. Great plan

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Brendan:

This directive is now Church Law!

Not much of a discussion though, is it? That’s like saying ‘Why?’ ‘Because it is.’ On matters of faith, I’m happy to do so. On matters that relate to how people in society, here and now, are treated, I’m not happy to just accept things without good reason.

Mike

 

[Brendan]

MikeWM:

Not much of a discussion though, is it? That’s like saying ‘Why?’ ‘Because it is.’ On matters of faith, I’m happy to do so. On matters that relate to how people in society, here and now, are treated, I’m not happy to just accept things without good reason.

Mike

Vatican I

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

There already WAS lots of discussion on it, look at the articles mentioned for prime examples. Rome heard these arguments and made judgement.

No one said that you had to accept it happily, or be happy about it at all, but you do have to accept it.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MikeWM:

Ah, boys, or young men? This looks like that false conflation of paedophilia and homosexuality again…

Mike

Right. Just like there’s a false conflation between masturbation and pornography. “Just because a guy likes to look at pornography doesn’t mean he likes to masturbate.”

 

[neophyte]

A very interesting discussion.

…even a psychologically healthy gay man who can live a celibate life will be barred from seminaries.

“Psychologically healthy gay man”: now THAT’S an oxymoron. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and in fact it was listed as a psychological disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Criteria until it was removed for political reasons.

If a Vatican directive barring homosexuals from the priesthood appears, it will be a disaster for the Catholic Church…

We could use many disasters like this.

would mean setting aside the example of countless hardworking and faithful gay men who have served as priests, and who have lived their promises of celibacy with integrity…

Nonsense. Later the author claims that the majority of homosexual priests have been silenced or are keeping their homosexuality secret; in that case they are no example at all to anyone.

unjustly place blame for the abuse crisis on all gay priests, even the celibate ones…

More nonsense. What it does is end a disastrous experiment in social engineering and rebellion that brought scandal to the Church.

any ban would drastically diminish the pool of applicants to seminaries and religious orders…

Removing homosexual men from the pool will result in a better pool. Quality, not quantity.

Some heterosexual men have told me that they would be less likely to enter a religious order or seminary that evinces such an attitude to some of their fellow human beings…

Men who are inclined to reject the clear moral teaching of the Church don’t want to become priests? Praise God!

As for gays and lesbians in the pews who are asked to live chastely, they may rightly wonder: if a person cannot live chastity in a seminary environment that is supposed to be designed to help one live chastely, then how am I supposed to? …

Wait a minute, I thought the author was trying to tell us that homosexuals could lead chaste lives! Now he’s saying they can’t, even in the seminary?

Most have been formally silenced by bishops or religious superiors on the topic, so the Church can deny our existence…

My guess is that they’ve been silenced to prevent them from espousing heresy…

What moral theologians used to call “invincible ignorance” only breeds prejudice, fear and hatred…

Ahh, so here’s the rub. The author thinks that the moral and disciplinary teaching of the Church is based on “invincible ignorance”, and that “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” is a statement that breeds prejucice, fear and hatred. That tells me everything I need to know.

And a Vatican declaration that we should cease to exist would not be the last cross pressed down on us by the Church that we serve.

The Church did not cause anyone to become homosexual.

MikeWM:

What about the mother’s daughters? Does she trust her child to a priest who ‘might’ be heterosexual and like girls?..

The difference, of course, it that heterosexuality is not intrinsically disordered.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Bravo, neophyte. You’re my hero. :bowdown2:

 

[netmilsmom]

MikeWM:

I don’t have children no, and if I did, while I would be very careful with them, I wouldn’t over-protect. How old are your children? Have you seriously never left them alone with another adult? Not a childminder? Not when the teacher keeps them back for detention?

Nope.
My girls are 5 & 7. Dad and I take them where we go and greatly enjoy their company.
It’s the way families used to do it. Not dump kids off on whoever would take them.
And I homeschool.

It’s healthy until taken too far. If you never let your kids climb a tree or ride a bike down the road, I think you’re protecting them too much.

You have no children. I was like you until 34 years old. I thought like you. When you have a child you think differently.
This is not about riding a bike, it’s about taking away one’s innocence.
NO chance should be taken with that.
If you think it should, you show that you don’t have kids.

Well, no, I wouldn’t do that either. Michael Jackson has exhibited very suspicious behaviour, whether or not he was technically innocent of the specific charges he faced.

So have very many priests.
In American, churches legally can’t afford to take the chance anymore. Our Diocese are going broke from the behavior. Greedy people are accusing innocent people to get to the deep pockets of the church.
The pockets are getting shallower.

shrugs I don’t see any problem with it, so I can’t tell you.

Yup, no father would make this statement.
As my hubby says, “I don’t trust men with my daughters because I am one. I was a Marine and I know how men think.”

Well, that is useful. So the actual paedophiles will get away scot-free without any suspicion because aim was taken at the homosexuals. Great plan

Mike

I guess you are blind to this, maybe you have a pony in the show, The actual pedophiles that molested young boys, were homosexual.
The homosexual priests that raped teenage boys were homosexual.
No problem with the Vatican removing any of them.

B16 wants a leaner, more devout church. I agree with him.
I can’t be a priest either. Find something else to do in the Church.

 

[Libero]

I guess you are blind to this, maybe you have a pony in the show, The actual pedophiles that molested young boys, were homosexual.
The homosexual priests that raped teenage boys were homosexual.
No problem with the Vatican removing any of them.

B16 wants a leaner, more devout church. I agree with him.
I can’t be a priest either. Find something else to do in the Church.

One can be a paedophile without being a homosexual.

The church is not being devout by prohibitting homosexuals from being priests, did God create a law saying no homosexuals should ever be priests, or is this just another church law?

Nope.
My girls are 5 & 7. Dad and I take them where we go and greatly enjoy their company.
It’s the way families used to do it. Not dump kids off on whoever would take them.
And I homeschool.

Huww wait till teenage hormones kick in unless you have a well behaved angel, just like me

 

[netmilsmom]

Libero:

One can be a paedophile without being a homosexual.

The church is not being devout by prohibitting homosexuals from being priests, did God create a law saying no homosexuals should ever be priests, or is this just another church law?

Huww wait till teenage hormones kick in unless you have a well behaved angel, just like me

True, one can be a pediphile without being homosexual.
One step at a time.
This step then another. One must start cleaning up the problem someplace. And actually, there are many denominations to go to if one doesn’t like the laws that the Catholic Church has put in. Just like with a club, if one does not like the rules, one must change one’s behavior or change one’s association. I’m not happy with Birth Control. With my life in danger with another Pregnancy, I had to get permission to prevent one. But I lived by the rules.

And if my children turn out as well as the niece and nephew I raised in the 80’s, I don’t think I’ll have to worry about them at all. Teenage hormones are overrated when the basic good is in them.

 

[thistle]

mlchance:

Also, the only criterion for being a priest isn’t celibacy and chastity (which are two different issues). Some priests, for example, aren’t celibate; they are married.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’m not sure that last sentence is correct. My understanding is that the Church takes married priests who have converted from other denominations like Church of England, for example, on condition that they are celibate from the day they are accepted as a priest in the Catholic Church.

 

[cameron_lansing]

thistle:

I’m not sure that last sentence is correct. My understanding is that the Church takes married priests who have converted from other denominations like Church of England, for example, on condition that they are celibate from the day they are accepted as a priest in the Catholic Church.

No, this is not required by the Pastoral Provision.

 

[thistle]

cameron_lansing:

No, this is not required by the Pastoral Provision.

Does this mean they can remain married and have normal sexual relations despite the man being a Catholic priest and an invalid marriage (not married in the Catholic Church)?

 

[mercygate]

thistle:

Does this mean they can remain married and have normal sexual relations despite the man being a Catholic priest and an invalid marriage (not married in the Catholic Church)?

The marriage is not invalid. And yes, they may enjoy their conjugal privileges.

 

[thistle]

mercygate:

The marriage is not invalid. And yes, they may enjoy their conjugal privileges.

I’m not so clued up on this but if two married Protestants convert to the Catholic Faith do they not have to be remarried in a Catholic Church before they could receive Communion?

 

[Brendan]

thistle:

Does this mean they can remain married and have normal sexual relations despite the man being a Catholic priest and an invalid marriage (not married in the Catholic Church)?

During any conversion process, if a Marriage is determined to be irregular, it is regularized as part of the conversion.

Protestant marriages are, in fact, recognized by the Catholic Church as Valid if both parties are Baptized. Protestants are not bound by Canonical Form as Catholics are.

 

[cameron_lansing]

thistle:

I’m not so clued up on this but if two married Protestants convert to the Catholic Faith do they not have to be remarried in a Catholic Church before they could receive Communion?

Non Catholics are not bound to Catholic Church law but only divine law when they marry one another.

Divine law requires both non Catholic parties to be free to marry. This requires a) they were not married previously to others who are still alive, and b) they are not closely related by blood (as ancestors and descendants, and probably as siblings).

Apart from the Eastern Orthodox, these free parties can then give their consent to marriage in any legal form that their own religion and/or the civil state sanctions. It is their consent, expressed according to that legal form, that makes marriage.

If they do this, they are legally and validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. If both of them are baptized, the Catholic Church considers their marriage also to be a sacrament.

There need be no further action upon the conversion of one or both.

 

[Brendan]

thistle:

I’m not so clued up on this but if two married Protestants convert to the Catholic Faith do they not have to be remarried in a Catholic Church before they could receive Communion?

That is correct.

Marriage is a Sacrament bestowed by one Baptized person upon their spouse.

Assuming the Protestants in question were Baptized and free to marry, they might Validily bestow the Sacrament upon each other.

Catholics are bound by a particular Canonical form - to be married in the Church and officially witnessed by a representative of the Church (priest or deacon), unless properly dispensed by a Bishop.

Protestants are not bound by this Form, and this any Marriage between Baptized Protestants is Valid and recognized by the Church

 

[thistle]

Brendan:

During any conversion process, if a Marriage is determined to be irregular, it is regularized as part of the conversion.

Protestant marriages are, in fact, recognized by the Catholic Church as Valid if both parties are Baptized. Protestants are not bound by Canonical Form as Catholics are.

Okay. Thanks.
On a separate issue isn’t taking on married priests then a double standard when the Church is adament about priests not only being celibate but also single? How do you reconcile married priests and no celibacy with the Church’s Doctrine on single and celibate?

 

[MikeWM]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Nope.
My girls are 5 & 7. Dad and I take them where we go and greatly enjoy their company.
It’s the way families used to do it. Not dump kids off on whoever would take them.
And I homeschool.

Good, I agree with you (see my very long thread with Vern Humphrey in the ‘in the news’ section).

Nevertheless there is going to come a time when you can’t be there for them every second.

You have no children. I was like you until 34 years old. I thought like you. When you have a child you think differently.
This is not about riding a bike, it’s about taking away one’s innocence.
NO chance should be taken with that.
If you think it should, you show that you don’t have kids.

I agree that you should be taking every possible action to prevent something so terrible happening to your children - but eventually they are going to get older and fly the nest.

So have very many priests.

So watch them closely. If they so something wrong, jump on them. In the meantime trust your parental instincts, they are generally pretty good.

In American, churches legally can’t afford to take the chance anymore. Our Diocese are going broke from the behavior. Greedy people are accusing innocent people to get to the deep pockets of the church.
The pockets are getting shallower.

Convenient to scapegoat the homosexuals for the ‘greedy people’ rather than blame the greedy people though, isn’t it?

Yup, no father would make this statement.
As my hubby says, “I don’t trust men with my daughters because I am one. I was a Marine and I know how men think.”

At their age? I don’t think 5 or 7 year olds think like that at all And when they are older - well, there are a lot more potential worries.

I guess you are blind to this, maybe you have a pony in the show,

? By that do you mean you think I am homosexual and/or am thinking of becoming a priest?

The actual pedophiles that molested young boys, were homosexual.
The homosexual priests that raped teenage boys were homosexual.

Some of them. Possibly even most of them. The majority of murders are done by men, shall we lock all men up just in case?

No problem with the Vatican removing any of them.

Not the ones that have done these horrible crimes, of course not!

B16 wants a leaner, more devout church.

Well, he is sure going to succeed in reducing the number of priests at this rate

I agree with him. I can’t be a priest either. Find something else to do in the Church.

You can’t be a priest for a good reason. You are a woman. The reasons for women not being priests are comprehensive and detailed and make some sense, whether you agree with them or not. The reasons for this make no sense except as either a knee-jerk reaction to the sex scandal, which I can’t support, or as genuine discrimination against homosexual people for their unconscious thoughts alone, which I can’t support either.

Mike

 

[mercygate]

thistle:

Okay. Thanks.
On a separate issue isn’t taking on married priests then a double standard when the Church is adament about priests not only being celibate but also single? How do you reconcile married priests and no celibacy with the Church’s Doctrine on single and celibate?

Watch out, thistle. ByzCath is gonna eat you alive over that one! None of our Eastern Churches require celibacy of their Priests. Celibacy is a Latin Rite thing, and as a discipline, rather than a doctrine, it can be dispensed.

The Church retains celibacy as a discipline because it is a great gift, a charism given by the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church, and objectively, because it witnesses to the Kingdom of Heaven where “they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” it is a higher calling even than marriage.