Vatican makes attempted ordination of Women a grave crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks be to God. Some people don’t realize what an offense against God that the “ordination of women” is.
 
Oh, I agree it’s a grave sin to attempt to ordain women, but it’s NOT the same as child abuse. The Vatican shouldn’t even say things like that, (if they did) it makes them look uncaring.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
The revised rules puts this in the same category as clerical sex abuse.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I’d say “same category” since they are not related activities. I would say same level of gravity, perhaps.

That being said, I think it’s a good thing. About time they got some backbone and spanked these people who arrogantly think they know better than Jesus! The Church does not claim the authority to correct Our Lord. He is the One who set up the male-only priesthood, not us.
 
I guess I am a little confused, what actually changed except that now the CDF now investigates these cases?

I agree that these cases need to be dealt with swiftly (automatic excommunication?) as this is a sin directly against God.
 
The Guardian.

This is a notoriously anti-catholic source. I put it right up there with the National Enquirer and Jack Chick.
 
No one from the Vatican has said they are the same, it is the newspapers saying they are the same because the people who write them are either stupid or are anti-Christ and His Truth.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
No one from the Vatican has said they are the same, it is the newspapers saying they are the same because the people who write them are either stupid or are anti-Christ and His Truth.
Click to expand...
Now THAT’S charitable. Drop calling people “stupid”, my friend. We Christians can rise above those kind of comments.

Maybe instead of anti-Christian and Truth, they simply don’t know it? Maybe they THINK they know it. Alot of people who are “anti-Catholic” aren’t stupid at all. They just don’t know the beauty of the church!
 
Rascalking said:
Now THAT’S charitable. Drop calling people “stupid”, my friend. We Christians can rise above those kind of comments.

Maybe instead of anti-Christian and Truth, they simply don’t know it? Maybe they THINK they know it. Alot of people who are “anti-Catholic” aren’t stupid at all. They just don’t know the beauty of the church!
Click to expand...
Sorry mom.
 
Rascalking said:
Now THAT’S charitable. Drop calling people “stupid”, my friend. We Christians can rise above those kind of comments.

Maybe instead of anti-Christian and Truth, they simply don’t know it? Maybe they THINK they know it. Alot of people who are “anti-Catholic” aren’t stupid at all. They just don’t know the beauty of the church!
Click to expand...
Which makes them stupid for making such claims when they don’t know even know the TRUTH yet claim it as facts. They are quick to make something uncharitable of the Church, but we can’t defend what is true and call them what they are? Come on, lets not confuse this with being “nice” and actually defend the Church instead of always giving the benefit of the doubt to EVERY person who writes to hurt the Church’s image.
 
rben20 said:
Which makes them stupid for making such claims when they don’t know even know the TRUTH yet claim it as facts. They are quick to make something uncharitable of the Church, but we can’t defend what is true and call them what they are? Come on, lets not confuse this with being “nice” and actually defend the Church instead of always giving the benefit of the doubt to EVERY person who writes to hurt the Church’s image.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need to defend the church, but calling people “stupid” isn’t the way to do it. Let’s focus on the ideas-we are on the winning side, truth is in our corner-we don’t need to throw apples at people.
 
I guess I just don’t understand why these two issues are addressed in the same paper. It doesn’t make sense to me.
 
Spencerian said:
This Guardian article is written poorly and uses “weasel words” to exaggerate the relevance of matters.

A somewhat more canonically digestible article is available from CNA.
Click to expand...
the Guardian also says this:

"Pope Benedict is not responsible for cover-up, collusion, turning a blind eye, institutional idolatry or any of the other accusations that, with greater or lesser vehemence, have been hurled at the Catholic church during recent weeks. On the contrary, he is the one in the Vatican who has done most to rid the church of this scourge. He is the one who has acted most consistently and energetically to improve the church’s handling of these cases."
Taken from another post from this forum. Are they wrong?
 
pnewton said:
The Guardian.

This is a notoriously anti-catholic source. I put it right up there with the National Enquirer and Jack Chick.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that The Guardian is at the same anti-Catholic level of Chick tracts, or having the same lack of credibility posessed by the National Enquirer (are they anti-Catholic, or simply tabloid-esque?) However, I would not cite The Guardian as an authoritative news source on Catholic matters because the newspaper is well known to tilt to the left, and is not friendly to traditional religion. Surely more reliable news sources exist.

That said, I think it interesting that both The Guardian and the Catholic News Agency articles observe that the reforms mainly concern the problem of sexual abuse by priests, yet both headline that their articles with a reference to female priests. Could it be that female ordination is now considered more interesting than the sex abuse scandal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top