Its pretty sad to think that the divorced are refused the Eucharist---but that the Church thinks this is too severe a punishment to give to child molesting priests. Please tell me this is not true.
Well, it certainly is true that many child molesting priests have continued to say Mass.
My point was not what the Church is doing to punish them-I don't know what they are doing-but that it should be done publicly, like the shunning of the divorced.
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!
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.