FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
Posted on 03/04/2002 2:50:19 AM PST by Jim Noble
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
this is UNTRUE.
The divorced are NOT refused the Eucharist.
If you divorce AND remarry outside the Church and
without an annulment you can't receive the Eucharist.
Statements like this fly in the face of reality. There have been NO reports in the latest revelations about Cardinal Laws flock of young girls being molested.
It is PC at its worst and Mr Clohessy, who purports to represent victims of priests, should wake the hell up.
it's amazing how many people - including Catholics - "think" they know what the Church teaches
Steve: I attended our Parish Mission last night and it's awesome. Fr Dupont is preaching and teaching
on the Gospel of Mark and he's wonderful. He keeps it to an hour - so if you and Nina have time
you should think of popping in.
Bunk. What they need to face is prison. A priest molester is no different than some freak hanging around a schoolyard, he just has better connections. Lock 'em all up!
Yes, of course. I agree.
I was writing about what the Church should do-the Church can't (fortunately) lock 'em up-but they can and should excommunicate them-I have no question about this.
Peggy Noonan is a principled lady and an Irish Catholic increasingly observant. She said on C-SPAN yesterday that Cardinal Law should resign and so he should. So should each and every other cardinal, archbishop, bishop, and priest involved in such behavior or covering it up.
The Vatican seems ready to stir on the question and so panic sets in among those who seek to further corrupt the priesthood and the Church on this and many other matters. They hope against hope that the next papal conclave will be soon and that the result will be the election of a mushbrained liberal as pope who will allow them a say in Church governance and eliminate the office of the papacy as we know it and the authority of the Vatican with it. They should live so long. The next pope will be elected by cardinals nearly all of whom have been appointed by John Paul II. Not all of them are dedicated to his policies but more will be dedicated to them at the next conclave than at the one that elected John Paul II.
As John Paul II has said at every step of his papacy, "Be not afraid!"
What has happened here in the United States and in Canada, England and Ireland is a disgrace but it seems that the necessary purging of the ranks will only begin under this papacy and will be completed in the next. John Paul II is flesh and blood and subject to physical infirmity. May his successor consolidate his policies and carry on the work with renewed vigor.
The current rash of problems, in the Boston archdiocese, are because of this type of felonius perversion.
Riordan, who abused over 80 male children, on the other hand,was also married but The root of his problem is Homosexual Pedophilia.
His Pastor, it later turned out was a Homosexual, who had his trysts in the rectory and turned a blind eye to Riordans abuses.
There is no way that any of these types of lifestyles can exist within a Holy Church .
Cardinal Law has really stepped in it this time,See Ya' Bernie.Yesterday a victim(Stephen Lynch)Made his case to Card. Law during mass in a calm manner,and was arrested by the police.
It is outrageous that a catholic can be arrested for speaking out in church.
...from being molested, it's worth it.
Isn't that what the liberals always say when they restrict the gun rights of law-abiding gun owners? "If it saves just one child...," then it doesn't matter who's rights are violated. I'll bet they sing a different tune for their beloved homosexual deviants!
You are so ill-informed on the subject of homosexuality in the priesthood that anything you say is suspect.
I'm sorry, but I really don't have much respect for people who dedicate their lives to researching homosexuality in the clergy.
Your "respect" is beside the point; these people do, in fact, know whereof they speak. The Church has a serious problem, and Navarro-Valls (who is not a priest) complicated it with his buffoonish statements about the validity of ordination of gays.
It would be easy for any number of Catholics on this board to ridicule belief systems of those outside the Roman Catholic Church either in or out of Christianity. To do so would be rude. To do so would be to lack a dedication to charity in its genuine sense. What is it about the Roman Catholic Church that so obsesses its critics?
Others have pointed out here that merely being divorced does not render a Roman Catholic who is in the state of grace sacrilegious for receiving the Eucharist. A person would not be in the state of grace if living in sin after such a divorce or before marriage or while practicing homosexuality, much less pederasty. That the government allows divorce and remarriage does not justify a Catholic divorcing and remarrying without such annulment as such a person might obtain. This post is one more example of the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.
A priest has the literal ability, having received the sacrament of Holy Orders, to say Mass although he is in a state of mortal sin. It is still a valid Mass but his receipt of the Eucharist during Mass is, for him, another mortal sin, one of sacrilege. Thus, to the extent that your post suggests that he may receive the Eucharist with the blessings of the Church while practicing pederasty, you are wrong. He can but he may not. He has the ability to say Mass and confect the Eucharist in the privacy of his own room without the Church even knowing. The Church no more physically prevents him from saying Mass unworthily than it prevents a lay person from committing adultery. For all such a priest's bishop knows, the priest may have received absolution for past sins.
Of course, that does not prevent the Church from separating such a priest from the active priesthood. The Vatican statement suggests that such a mandatory policy imposed by Rome may be on the way.
I do not doubt that some bishops are part of the problem in terms of their own behavior. Some discretion is necessary with them since only bishops may ordain priests and consecrate other bishops and schismatic churches with illicit sacramental power (i.e., a validly ordained priesthood and an illicit but continuing line of bishops) may result. The above merely scratches the surface of the complications.
Eliminating pedophiles won't fix the problem. Eliminating gays (and intimating that gays cannot be validly ordained, when they've been validly ordained for centuries) is equally nonsensical.
Many on this forum ridicule the only solution that will have a short-term effect, which is to ordain married men. The Church will have a larger pool of candidates from which to choose, thus giving bishops the freedom to reject those unsuitable. Let's face it folks: only a masochist would enter a seminary today, when even straight-arrow priests are ashamed to wear their collars in public.
Cynically, a married priesthood would also give the Church cover in allowing more lay involvement in choosing just who, and who will not, become priests.
I've always felt our Protestant brethren have a much better system wherein congregations have at least a major say in who will serve them.
Well, I have three beautiful daughters who are being raised Catholic. Is that enough to have an interest in the subject?
Two! Count 'em, two axes to grind!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.