Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[dianaiad]

On the issue of race, so have you guys. Considering racism was a Doctrine of Mormonism until 1978 when you removed a barrier to the priesthood based solely on a man’s skin color. You should be proud. But now the non-racist Prophets have given the thumbs up to killing unborn babies. I think Mormonism is not destined to see all of humanity as equal. Which is why I know is it not a religion from God. The Catholic Church has the high moral ground.

I see.

You can’t get anywhere on the topic under consideration, so you change tack and attack on another one.

But y’know what? I have addressed the topic of abortion with you, gone over it completely, and I’m not going there again.

Just…go back and see what we have said about it earlier.

 

[Janet1983]

Funny. It took us almost a 'full century…" and you are crowing about something it took you guys FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS to do?

Here is the short version for you:

• Not every Catholic is a priest
• To have black priests missions had to bring in black converts
• Out of these the few priests are recruited
• Education must be available (When were the first African Americans allowed to go to school and university?)
• It takes several years of education to become a priest. (If upon finishing college, a man still wants to become a priest he will join a seminary. If the man joins a seminary without college, education to become a priest takes eight years. With a college degree, time in the seminary is usually four years.)
• Every Mormon male above the age of 16 is a priest
• Converts have to be found, but these all become priests
• Education is different and does not require a Master’s degree.

The normal version:
You are forgetting something:
Catholic Priests have a College education and celibacy. Not every Catholic is a priest, even though they are members of the Church… The first Catholic missionary to Uganda was born in 1858 for example… before missions sprung up Catholic Christianity was only to be found in Europe… With the missions white priests were sent to other areas of the World winning people to the Catholic faith (the Patres Albi for example). From there it is still a long way towards black priests, because these men have to be educated somewhere which is usually not regionally possible. Universities had to be built or the respective man had to be sent to Europe. It takes a long education to become a priest. If upon finishing college, a man still wants to become a priest he will join a seminary. If the man joins a seminary without college, education to become a priest takes eight years. With a college degree, time in the seminary is usually four years
Finding converts and finding and educating the few that are called is different from Mormonism.
In Mormonism however every male above the age of 16 can and will become a priest. Therefore there are far less things that have to happen first. The only prerequisite is converting them and allowing them to become priests.

 

[dianaiad]

You are wrong about what the Catholic Chruch teaches as DOCTRINE and DOGMA.

The Catholic Church makes a distinction between “Sacred Tradition” and “tradition”.

I challenge you to cite any Catholic DOCTRINE or DOGMA that says white skin is better than black skin.

The Book of Mormon specifically states that black or dark non-white skin is a CURSE from your Mormon god.

As for the rest of you diversionary (away from the true subject) diatribe:
TU QUOQUE argument.

You are hanging your self with this one, bub.

Tradition is so important to you…and Tradition is the combined actions, teachings and results of your beliefs. If Dogma doesn’t mention a theological problem with skin color, your tradition certainly does—because all we have to do is look at your history.

No difference between races?
OK, then why weren’t there any black Cardinals until recently, and why can’t you point definitively to a black Pope?
Why, when more than one Pope condemned slavery, did Catholics support it, and even OWN SLAVES, for more than five hundred years after it was first condemned? Why are the heroes in the Catholic church, who fought against slavery and taught among them, so few and far between that most of those who actually did it are elevated to sainthood?
Why is it that the first ‘black’ priest in America never admitted that he was black (and why should he? He was, in reality, at least 89% IRISH, and ‘passed’ (I hate that word) all his life. Why are y’all so proud of his African heritage, as if that 10 to 15 percent of negroid blood trumps and completely subsumes his Celtic heritage?

Why do you think he had to hide his heritage all his life?

Why would the first black priest who always admitted BEING black (he was, after all, born a slave himself) be unable to attend seminary in the USA, have been so utterly opposed by the priests and nuns who knew and raised him, so that he had to go to Rome?

Why was there never, ever, been an excommunication because of owning slaves? Not even one?

Why am I harping on this? Because y’all keep calling us ‘racist’…because our official stance for a hundred and fifty years was that negro people of African descent couldn’t hold the priesthood. Then one morning, after a great deal of prayer and supplication, that was reversed and every worthy male member could hold the priesthood…and nobody, I mean, nobody, can point to Mormons and identify one single racist policy or action since that time, no matter how you look at it.

So I’ll ask you this question. What is more worthy of criticism: a policy that is the result of an official statement followed reluctantly…the reversal of which was received with joy and instant acceptance by the vast majority of believers,

…or a people whose very top leaders gave lip service to equality, but who never enforced it, nor expected their people to follow it, and whose very priesthood opposed it and engaged in bigotry, discrimination and slave ownership?

The Mormons were ‘officially’ racist, and followed that policy even when it was uncomfortable. When the policy changed, very, very few people greeted it with anything but instant acceptance and joy.

The Catholics were officially not racist—but they were institutionally so, as is obvious by the number of blacks who have NOT been priests or Cardinals or popes, by support of slavery, by segregation in schools–(Bishop Healy would never have been allowed to attend Georgetown University had it been known that he was in any way a descendant of slaves) …and by the sheer scope of the way everybody ignored papal declarations of equality.

this is very much a ‘by their fruits,’ thing.

Is Catholicism racist NOW?

Why, no. I’m sure there are racist Catholics, just as I’m quite certain that there are racist Mormons. However, the church as a whole is not NOW ignoring such things as 'slavery is not a good idea" and “everybody with a true calling is welcome in the priesthood, no matter what his skin color is.”

But that has been rather recent…and it took you a lot longer than it took us.

So I suggest that you can the 'Mormons are racist" remarks, because the mud puddle is a lot deeper on your end.

Let us just rejoice in the progress both our peoples have made, and stop attacking each other. Or rather, you stop attacking me, because I only RETURN fire.

 

[dianaiad]

That just shows that you can’t defend your Mormon position, so you have to DIVERT the argument away from the original subject, a TU QUOQUE argument is designed to be a DIVERSION.

It goes to ethos–mote and beam, cast the first stone, all that. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to criticise Mormons for being racist. None.

 

[dianaiad]

Be fair that should be 1977.

Ah, but we’ve only been around about a hundred and seventy five years, and we withheld the priesthood for about a hundred and forty six of those years. That’s not something to be PROUD of, but I don’t think that people who took four times that long to ordain an African American priest have much right to criticize the matter.

Now it looks very much as if we are going to have a black apostle within 5 to 10 years. We already have several black 'general authorities." So…took us less than 200 years from our beginnings to have full participation in our clergy/religious life, even with a priesthood restriction of 146 years interrupting that.

the very first black Cardinal was ordained in 1960. According to Catholic tradition, that’s…what…ten times longer for you to get around to it than it did us?

I mean, really…It took over 350 years AFTER the Portuguese arrived in Africa for y’all to ordain a black African priest…in AFRICA!!! Not until 1843 was there a black African priest in Africa. C’mon, guys…and you are criticizing US for being slow?

 

[Stephen168]

It is also true that Brigham Young and the early Mormons were bigots, even as all the people around them (slave owners mostly) were…and that bigotry may well have tainted the Mormons for a hundred and fifty years. However, when another prophet asked for guidance from God, received it and proclaimed it one sunny summer morning, we all listened, found joy in the listening, and everything changed in an instant.

So, the prophet who ended this bigotry was guided by God, and the one who instituted was not guided by God (as he claimed and those who followed him believed)?

On the issue of race, so have you guys. Considering racism was a Doctrine of Mormonism until 1978 when you removed a barrier to the priesthood based solely on a man’s skin color. You should be proud. But now the non-racist Prophets have given the thumbs up to killing unborn babies. I think Mormonism is not destined to see all of humanity as equal. Which is why I know is it not a religion from God. The Catholic Church has the high moral ground.

I see. You can’t get anywhere on the topic under consideration, so you change tack and attack on another one.

The same tack: Your prophets do not prophesize.
Racism/Curse of Cain, Adam-God, Blood atonement, and Abortion are all the same proof that Mormonism a religion invented and run by regular guys that reflect the issues of their day.

 

[dianaiad]

Here is the short version for you:

• Not every Catholic is a priest

Not every Mormon is, either. True, most men are…

• To have black priests missions had to bring in black converts

Oh, come on. Rebecca just gave me a link to one of your saints who went about comforting and teaching slaves, and personally converted THIRTY THOUSAND OF THEM all by himself. Catholics have a habit of converting pretty much everybody they come into contact with, when they accompany conquerors. These people become true believers.

The Portuguese certainly 'converted" almost every black in Southern Africa, but it took them 350 years to finally allow one of them to be ordained.

• Out of these the few priests are recruited

Out of an entire nation, not one black man felt the ‘call’ to be a priest, in 350 years (talking, again, about Africa…but come to think of it, that would go for the Americas, too…)

• Education must be available (When were the first African Americans allowed to go to school and university?)

Janet, you didn’t really go there, did you? You are excusing the racism and bigotry of not having black priests on the fact that your own church was racist and bigoted in their education? You guys could have offered education to blacks. You offered it to whites, certainly! …and last I heard, seminaries are Catholic schools.

In fact, the story of Fathers Healy and Tolton are both very bad examples of the sort of education you were offering black people. Father Healy “passed” as Irish, so he was successful. Father Tolton could not–and he was refused that education. Certainly there was no attempt to educate blacks in Africa, and the church has NO excuse for that. You have been in the business of education from the beginning; if there was none available to blacks, then, m’dear, that’s YOUR FAULT.

That you are now claiming a lack of education for the fact that there were no black priests…oh, Janet, that’s priceless.

• It takes several years of education to become a priest. (If upon finishing college, a man still wants to become a priest he will join a seminary. If the man joins a seminary without college, education to become a priest takes eight years. With a college degree, time in the seminary is usually four years.)

What, are you claiming that blacks are somehow incapable of this?

• Every Mormon male above the age of 16 is a priest
• Converts have to be found, but these all become priests
• Education is different and does not require a Master’s degree.

Ah, but the thing is, Janet, none of the above means anything here. White Catholics have been ordained as priests for hundreds of years. They manage to complete the education, they have been offered it; the opportunities have always been there. If the above ‘problems’ are all that were keeping blacks from becoming priests and Cardinals, then the sheer statistics of membership would mean that at least 3 to 5 percent of Catholic priests would be black. At least 8 popes would be identified definitively as black.

There have been, quite literally, thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of Cardinals…and until 1960, evidently, not one of them was black. Today, even still, we have…one. Things are getting much better, surely–but that’s mostly because the church finally started allowing blacks to GET that education they require.

It’s about percentages, Janet. Even now the numbers of black priests do not come close to matching the black population in the church as a whole. When it does, THEN you can talk to me about the differences here.

(continued on next post…sorry about that…)

 

[dianaiad]

(continued…again, sorry about that)

The normal version:
You are forgetting something:
Catholic Priests have a College education and celibacy. Not every Catholic is a priest, even though they are members of the Church… The first Catholic missionary to Uganda was born in 1858 for example… before missions sprung up Catholic Christianity was only to be found in Europe… With the missions white priests were sent to other areas of the World winning people to the Catholic faith (the Patres Albi for example). From there it is still a long way towards black priests, because these men have to be educated somewhere which is usually not regionally possible. Universities had to be built or the respective man had to be sent to Europe. It takes a long education to become a priest. If upon finishing college, a man still wants to become a priest he will join a seminary. If the man joins a seminary without college, education to become a priest takes eight years. With a college degree, time in the seminary is usually four years
Finding converts and finding and educating the few that are called is different from Mormonism.
In Mormonism however every male above the age of 16 can and will become a priest. Therefore there are far less things that have to happen first. The only prerequisite is converting them and allowing them to become priests.

Here’s the deal; before 1978 no black could hold the priesthood in Mormonism. It was an official policy. After that, all of them can…and there are no restrictions on what they do, where they go, who educates them and why, and the percentage of black priests matches well the percentage of black members. We aren’t holding anything back.

Now Catholics have been talking a great game, with the Popes declaring that all men were equal and that slave owners should be excommunicated, but even after literally centuries of this, Catholics were still (and this was church wide…) refusing to allow blacks in schools and seminaries, owning them as slaves, and not allowing any of them to become priests.

Even today, though the black Catholic population as a whole is 5% in the USA and 3% world wide, the percentage of black priests is less than 1%, and after all these years, you’ve only had one black Cardinal at a time for nearly fifty years—and you had NONE before that. At all.

The Portuguese (Catholics all, bringing priests and everything) took over South Africa nearly 500 years ago. It took nearly 350 years before there was a black priest from South Africa.

Which group of people is more to be condemned: the group that pays lip service to the notion of equality but took 1500 years to actually act like they claimed they believed, or the group that was officially racist for 146 years, but took about 30 seconds to reverse that when the restriction was removed?

Oh, my.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Even today, though the black Catholic population as a whole is 5% in the USA and 3% world wide, the percentage of black priests is less than 1%, and after all these years, you’ve only had one black Cardinal at a time for nearly fifty years—and you had NONE before that. At all.

Oh, my.

In 2005 Jacqueline Russell compiled a list of black Cardinals, she had 12 on her list???

 

[Janet1983]

(continued…again, sorry about that)
Here’s the deal; before 1978 no black could hold the priesthood in Mormonism. It was an official policy. After that, all of them can…and there are no restrictions on what they do, where they go, who educates them and why, and the percentage of black priests matches well the percentage of black members. We aren’t holding anything back.

100% of all Mormon men become priests… so this is logically correct.

Even today, though the black Catholic population as a whole is 5% in the USA and 3% world wide, the percentage of black priests is less than 1%, and after all these years, you’ve only had one black Cardinal at a time for nearly fifty years—and you had NONE before that. At all.

Only 1% of male Catholics do become priests… So it is logical to assume this does not change with the race… it doesn’t.

The Portuguese (Catholics all, bringing priests and everything) took over South Africa nearly 500 years ago. It took nearly 350 years before there was a black priest from South Africa.

Ever heard of Apartheid? That is neither a Catholic nor a generally Christian phenomena… just stupid people that think they have evolved further or people who were scared of the unknown and prejudiced… Did you know that I never seen a black person until I was in 5th grade? I was raised in a really small village in Germany and there were none… This boy that I met was very very open minded… otherwise I might have been sceptical too… what should I expect? I was young and didn’t have a clue… He was really awesome and nice and I enjoyed the fact that he would sit down next to me on the bus. He went to a different school, but we shared some time on the way every morning…
He was used to being around white folks, but I can hardly imagine what the situation in a country would have been like where they had never seen a white person before… Strange pale skinned folks who come as teachers? And the white folks… well they go somewhere and the inhabitants can’t read or write… what were they supposed to think?
Differences can brew scepticism as well as curiosity. People also like to feel superior and for the longest time they did and were to the degree that they knew things about the world… This kind of racism just came up from the fact that people did not know any better.
In the middle ages people thought that literate girls had something to do with the devil, because they thought girls were simply incapable of reading… They thought that women were inferior when it came to their intelligence… A couple hundred years later the same prejudices came up with black folks… until they found out that they can actually be their equal, given the same education…

 

[4Squarebaby]

Catholics may not have lived up to the Word but until 1978 Mormons with a smile on their faces worshiped a god that their prophets told them would not allow a man to be a full man if any African’s DNA, or blood back then, could be detected

 

[Stephen168]

Here’s the deal; before 1978 no black could hold the priesthood in Mormonism. It was an official policy…
Oh, my.

A racist policy Mormons believe came from God to their ‘prophets.’ A policy never found in the Church actually started by Christ.

 

[chris2009]

Why do you guys not have crosses in your church and temples?

I suppose you could also ask why Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or the apostles didn’t use the cross as a symbol of religion. This symbol evolved to become part of Christianity during the dark ages. As Mormons, we believe that after Christ and the apostles were killed, that many doctrines and ordinances were changed. Jewish and Pagan influences, along with the Roman government made an entirely different religion under Emporer Constantine to keep Rome united. Finally around 1500 AD, other Christian Churches broke away from Catholicism, but most adopted the same basic doctrines and teachings – including the use of the cross.

 

[chris2009]

A racist policy Mormons believe came from God to their ‘prophets.’ A policy never found in the Church actually started by Christ.

We don’t fully understand why God does what He does. His ways are not man’s ways. Only the descendants of Levi (Levites) were allowed to hold the priesthood during the days of Moses. Was God being racist here?

When Christ preached His gospel, he commanded the apostles in Matt 10:5-6:
“5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Christ commanded that the gospel ONLY be preached to the House of Isreal and not to the Gentiles or Samaritans. Was Christ a racist? Of course not. It wasn’t until after the death of Christ that Peter received the vision to take the gospel to the Gentiles also.

The Book of Mormon says in 2 Nephi 26:33:
“33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

The Mormons have always loved black people. In the early days of the church, it was the Mormons who went against what was popular. The Mormons were abolutionists and believed the slaves should be set free. Because of this, they were beaten, raped and unlawfully cast out of their homes in Missouri.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I suppose you could also ask why Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or the apostles didn’t use the cross as a symbol of religion. This symbol evolved to become part of Christianity during the dark ages.

Really?

1 Corinthians
18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Philippians 3:
18 For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.

Matthew 10:
38 and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:
34 He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

Luke 9:
23 Then he said to all, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

Luke 14:
27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Galations 2:
19 For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ;

Galations 6:
12 It is those who want to make a good appearance in the flesh who are trying to compel you to have yourselves circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.14 But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Ephesians 2:
14 For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, 15 abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it.

“We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.” (Tertullian, c.200AD)

Tertullian also defends against pagans, who are calling Christians “cross-worshipers”, and would add “they worship that which they deserve”.

You also have to remember that in the first 300 years of Christianity, being a Christian meant the death penalty. Christians in general did not flaunt their beliefs if they wished to live. A practice developed where the cross was hidden in other symbols, such as the anchor and less common the trident.

The sign of the cross, that is making the sign with your hand, was in used in the earliest times. The earliest was making the sign using your own finger on your own forehead. Tertullian speaks of a woman signing her bed before retiring for the night.

 

[dianaiad]

100% of all Mormon men become priests… so this is logically correct.

Only 1% of male Catholics do become priests… So it is logical to assume this does not change with the race… it doesn’t.

Wrong statistics, Janet. It doesn’t matter what percent of CATHOLICS become priests. It matters that the make up of that percentage does not match the make up of the population as a whole. In other words, if 5% of Catholics are black, no matter what percentage of Catholics are priests, 5% of THAT group should be black. If not, there is a problem.

As it happens, only 1% of priests are black when, since 5% of the entire population is black, so to should 5% of the priesthood be black. If not, the black population is underrepresented.

Ever heard of Apartheid? That is neither a Catholic nor a generally Christian phenomena… just stupid people that think they have evolved further or people who were scared of the unknown and prejudiced.

Yes, I have heard of apartheid. Why did the Catholics allow that to happen? They didn’t fight it much; indeed, the CAtholic schools were supported mainly by the apartheid government. As well, apartheid had NOTHING to do with whether a black man could become a Catholic priest in South Africa; it was a religious thing. If the government wouldn’t allow him to go to school/seminary, send him to Rome. But did you do that?

Nope.

… Did you know that I never seen a black person until I was in 5th grade? I was raised in a really small village in Germany and there were none… This boy that I met was very very open minded… otherwise I might have been sceptical too… what should I expect? I was young and didn’t have a clue… He was really awesome and nice and I enjoyed the fact that he would sit down next to me on the bus. He went to a different school, but we shared some time on the way every morning…
He was used to being around white folks, but I can hardly imagine what the situation in a country would have been like where they had never seen a white person before… Strange pale skinned folks who come as teachers? And the white folks… well they go somewhere and the inhabitants can’t read or write… what were they supposed to think?
Differences can brew scepticism as well as curiosity. People also like to feel superior and for the longest time they did and were to the degree that they knew things about the world… This kind of racism just came up from the fact that people did not know any better.
In the middle ages people thought that literate girls had something to do with the devil, because they thought girls were simply incapable of reading… They thought that women were inferior when it came to their intelligence… A couple hundred years later the same prejudices came up with black folks… until they found out that they can actually be their equal, given the same education…

Well, I never saw a black person until I was fourteen. Southern Idahoans did not, in the 1950’s; there just weren’t any. My sole experience with them was in old movies. I don’t think that was an entirely accurate portrayal of them.

The point is, Janet, that the CHURCH claimed that they were equal. Popes proclaimed this—and the church and the priesthood ignored it, when they could have turned it around a whole lot earlier than they did.

My point is a simple one. Do not criticize a belief system for anything unless you are absolutely certain your own is not guilty of the same thing. If you do, then your target is going to turn around and point out the beam in your eye, and you will have no place to go with it.

…and truth loses.

Now the thing is, Catholics and Catholicism seem to have gotten their acts together, after a millennium and a half (and you may want to leave it at that, since claiming two millenia of existence actually makes it worse…) and that is very, very encouraging and good. Rather than trade barbs about how much longer it took you guys than us, and how much more hypocritical your protestations about it are than we were, we should both just be grateful that we are growing up, and growing better.

How about that, for a change?

 

[dianaiad]

A racist policy Mormons believe came from God to their ‘prophets.’ A policy never found in the Church actually started by Christ.

Ah. so we had an official policy that we lived by and upheld, then, when it was reversed, we instantly changed how we dealt with blacks, making certain that they had everything that our official statements said they were entitled to.

Versus a church that CLAIMED that all men were equal, and CLAIMED that slaveowning was such a heinous offense that it was grounds for excommunication, and preaching about how God and Jesus views everyone equally—but spending 1500 years actually supporting slavery, owning slaves, refusing education and refusing to ordain blacks to the priesthood.

I don’t know about you, but that last is called ‘hypocrisy,’ We are not, and were not, hypocrites, and you guys were. There is no way you can get around that one.

Now which group is more worthy of blame?

You may not LIKE our policy towards members of black African descent, but we lived our religion, and when (as we believe) revelation came to change the policy regarding the priesthood, we paid attention. In the space of 40 years from that fix, we now have black general authorities and a probable black apostle in the near future. When we were told to fix it, we actually, y’know, FIXED it.

Now you guys, in spite of exhortations from the Pope to stop owning slaves or supporting slavery, to treat everyone equally, took something like FIVE HUNDRED YEARS after that proclamation to fix it and get black priests and Cardinals. Your pope may have said “no slaves” but your priests owned them. Your Popes may have said “all men are equal” but you failed to educate people of color, or allow them to become priests.

Tell me. Do you really think that criticizing Mormonism because of our past history with people of color is a wise thing for you to do?

Don’t you think, rather, that we should simply continue to improve our own relationships between the races, which has gained so much ground over the last fifty years?

 

[dianaiad]

A racist policy Mormons believe came from God to their ‘prophets.’ A policy never found in the Church actually started by Christ.

Perhaps I should use this as an illustration of the apostasy, then? Because if it was 'never found in the church actually started by Christ," Catholics certainly found it in their own practices and traditions.

 

[Janet1983]

Wrong statistics, Janet. It doesn’t matter what percent of CATHOLICS become priests. It matters that the make up of that percentage does not match the make up of the population as a whole. In other words, if 5% of Catholics are black, no matter what percentage of Catholics are priests, 5% of THAT group should be black. If not, there is a problem.

Out of all Catholics in the US 1% are priests.
The same goes for the population of the African American Catholics.
As long as the percentage is nearly the same all is good because the relation between parishioners and priests is the same…
Problem solved. You don’t like it? Ok…

That’s easily explained. Not every Roman Catholic male is a priest, while every Mormon male becomes one at the age of 16 (deacons at 12).

Here are some numbers:
African Americans in the United States: 36.0 million
African American Catholics: 2.5 million
African American Catholic Bishops: 12
African American Priests: 225
African American Seminarians: 26
African American Religious Sisters: 400
African American Religious Brothers: 75
African American Deacons: 437
(30 May 2006)

Among these 2.5 million you’ll also find women and children. Only males who are Catholic and have finished their seminary degree can become priests. That narrows it down already.
Not everybody is called to be a priest in the RCC however (especially because it does require celibacy… a good reason why the number of permanent deacons is significantly higher)
Here come the assumptions without statistics…
2,500,000 black Catholics…
50% female…
1,250,000 black male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
750,000 black male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
225 priests + 437 deacons = 662 men in the clergy with another 26 in seminary…

There are only few people who want to become priests or deacons however…

That however tells us that in 2006 the ratio between African American parishioners and African American priests was under 1%… That’s dreadful if you ask me…

But before we jump to conclusions let us look at the whole of the Catholic population using the exact same standard:
Statistics non-regarding the race:
Catholics: 64.8 million
Priests: 42,839
Seminarians: 3,308
Religious Sisters: 68,634
Religious Brothers: 5,451
Deacons: 14,574
(2005)

Let’s put the same standard I applied to the African American population:
64,800,000 Catholics…
50% female…
32,400,000 male Catholics…
2/5 boys…
19,440,000 male Catholics who could become priests if they wanted to…
42,839 priests + 14,574 deacons = 57,413 men in the clergy with another 3,308 in seminary…

That ratio is under 1% too. To declare that there are only a few black priests out there does not tell us anything (about racism), except that it tells us that statistically as many black men are called as there are of any other race.
The Mormon church had a quick rise in the last 30 years because all black men over the age of 16 became priests once they were allowed to do so and all the boys between 12 and 16 became deacons… It’s just a natural thing for these numbers to be significantly higher… If an average of less than 1% of the Mormon church were priests in a special priesthood the numbers would look dramatically different too.

 

[Worthy5]

Wrong statistics, Janet. It doesn’t matter what percent of CATHOLICS become priests. It matters that the make up of that percentage does not match the make up of the population as a whole. In other words, if 5% of Catholics are black, no matter what percentage of Catholics are priests, 5% of THAT group should be black. If not, there is a problem.

How are you controlling for other variables?