• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will try and ignore the immature personal attacks made against the Catholic religion. I am a Catholic, and whether or not you agree is your business, but hateful remarks are not welcomed.

There are two primary reasons why the Catholic Church holds this position, and it is not about repressing women or any type of misogyny.
1. Jesus did not ordain any women as apostles. A common response to this is that it would be against the culture of his time to do so, but that argument doesn't really make sense considering he associated with pretty much everyone his society rejected.
2. The sacrament of holy orders into the priesthood requires ordained priests to act in the person of Christ, and Jesus Christ was male.

Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness.

What of Mary of Magdala?

She is considered by a rising number of theologians and also average Catholics to be, as St Augustine claimed, the Apostle of the Apostles.
 
She is considered by a rising number of theologians and also average Catholics to be, as St Augustine claimed, the Apostle of the Apostles.

That's a very good point, probably the best argument if favor of female ordination. The trick in convincing the Church.
 
What of Mary of Magdala?

She is considered by a rising number of theologians and also average Catholics to be, as St Augustine claimed, the Apostle of the Apostles.
This is what I also say to be true, and I also think she might have married Jeuse as well.
 
Couldn't Jesus be "Jesus" without the penis? His penis didn't perform miracles that I'm aware of.
 
Couldn't Jesus be "Jesus" without the penis? His penis didn't perform miracles that I'm aware of.

The Church considers maleness and femaleness to be ontologically different and thus they are not interchangeable. The reason a priest cannot be female is philosophically based on this distinction, everything in the Eucharist has to be specific. The priest is standing in for Jesus, so the reasoning goes, the maleness of the priest is required by the same logic that wine must be used instead of, say, beer, or leavened bread instead of unleavened (which was actually cause for a schism!). I think you can make a very persuasive case that maleness is not something intrinsic to the priest's role in the sacrament, but it would take something of a sea-change in Church theology before such an argument would be mainstream.
 
The Church considers maleness and femaleness to be ontologically different and thus they are not interchangeable. The reason a priest cannot be female is philosophically based on this distinction, everything in the Eucharist has to be specific. The priest is standing in for Jesus, so the reasoning goes, the maleness of the priest is required by the same logic that wine must be used instead of, say, beer, or leavened bread instead of unleavened (which was actually cause for a schism!). I think you can make a very persuasive case that maleness is not something intrinsic to the priest's role in the sacrament, but it would take something of a sea-change in Church theology before such an argument would be mainstream.

It's hard to change after claiming infallibility.
 
It's hard to change after claiming infallibility.

The doctrine of papal and Church infallibility are often misunderstood in this way. Change isn't as hard as you might think, or as illogical. "Infallibility" does not mean immutability.
 
But what I don't want is for them to be raised in any church that has proven itself to be a danger to children and that has misogynistic ideals.

The rate of child abuse in the Catholic Church is no higher than it is in any other denomination, and it's only about half the rate that exists in the general population. The Catholic Church gets more attention because its structure makes it more accountable. Its response in recent years has been a model for other institutions dealing with the same problem. It's fair to say you probably couldn't find a safer place for your kids today.

The idea that men and women have different roles to fill in marriage, society, or the church isn't unique to Catholicism. Some may find it old-fashioned, while others may see wisdom in it, but to call it "misogynistic" seems like a drastic overstatement to me.
 
The doctrine of papal and Church infallibility are often misunderstood in this way. Change isn't as hard as you might think, or as illogical. "Infallibility" does not mean immutability.

Actually, infallible means incapable of error. Immutable means not capable of change. So basically what you are saying is that there is no right or wrong policy. It doesn't matter what they arbitrarily decide. Of course, JP2's statement flies in the face of that.
 
The rate of child abuse in the Catholic Church is no higher than it is in any other denomination, and it's only about half the rate that exists in the general population. The Catholic Church gets more attention because its structure makes it more accountable. Its response in recent years has been a model for other institutions dealing with the same problem. It's fair to say you probably couldn't find a safer place for your kids today.

The idea that men and women have different roles to fill in marriage, society, or the church isn't unique to Catholicism. Some may find it old-fashioned, while others may see wisdom in it, but to call it "misogynistic" seems like a drastic overstatement to me.

Wow, I can't believe you said this.

Is the church handing over the child fondling priests to authorities?
 
Wow, I can't believe you said this.

Is the church handing over the child fondling priests to authorities?

Yes. According to the USCCB's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, "Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities." They've also instituted background checks and abuse prevention training, including training for children.

Those who say it's too little too late don't usually understand the context of the issue. Most of the cases are many decades old. Not only the Church but also the civil authorities have changed their policies in the last few years as they've become more aware of sexual abuse. For example, the idea that all allegations must be reported is very new in the secular law. I'm not even sure all states require it yet. There's also a whole different philosophy guiding today's policies. In the past, the Church would consult with psychologists and be told that the abusers could be cured and returned to duty. Public schools and the Boy Scouts did the same thing. The mental health profession has a different attitude now, and many institutions have had to develop new policies as a result.
 
Yes. According to the USCCB's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, "Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities." They've also instituted background checks and abuse prevention training, including training for children.

Those who say it's too little too late don't usually understand the context of the issue. Most of the cases are many decades old. Not only the Church but also the civil authorities have changed their policies in the last few years as they've become more aware of sexual abuse. For example, the idea that all allegations must be reported is very new in the secular law. I'm not even sure all states require it yet. There's also a whole different philosophy guiding today's policies. In the past, the Church would consult with psychologists and be told that the abusers could be cured and returned to duty. Public schools and the Boy Scouts did the same thing. The mental health profession has a different attitude now, and many institutions have had to develop new policies as a result.

Pope apologizes for Irish sex abuse but offers no change in Vatican policy - washingtonpost.com

American bishops did change things in order to protect children. Good on them.

Is this the Vatican policy?
 
Pope apologizes for Irish sex abuse but offers no change in Vatican policy - washingtonpost.com

American bishops did change things in order to protect children. Good on them.

Is this the Vatican policy?

Automatic reporting of all allegations is not a worldwide policy. They are studying ideas for a uniform policy, but it's a tricky issue because of the balance between the interests of the accuser and the accused. Different countries handle that in different ways. What the Vatican has done is instruct the bishops to improve their policies, since the complaints are handled at the diocesan level and that's where the real failure was.

Vatican Fends Off Criticism of Abuse Rules - WSJ.com
 
Last edited:
Not only the Church but also the civil authorities have changed their policies in the last few years as they've become more aware of sexual abuse.

I must ask two questions about this statemnt:

1. What does "Last few years" mean to you?

2. Would you say that the Church was as quick to change their policies as the civil authorites were?
 
I must ask two questions about this statemnt:

1. What does "Last few years" mean to you?

2. Would you say that the Church was as quick to change their policies as the civil authorites were?

1. About 20 years.

2. No, but I wouldn't expect it to be. Civil authorities are charged with punishing wrongdoers, so they're quicker to approach things from that point of view. The Church is more concerned with healing, though admittedly the concern was misguided at times.
 
1. About 20 years.

Fair enough. I would use a smaller number for "last few years". Less than 10.

I would also say that in those last few years the church has tried to catch up to what was done by other groups over the last 20-30 years, but still lags behind.

But as far as knowledge about abuses occuring goes, the church has known for far longer than just the past 10-20 years.

No, but I wouldn't expect it to be. Civil authorities are charged with punishing wrongdoers, so they're quicker to approach things from that point of view. The Church is more concerned with healing, though admittedly the concern was misguided at times.

I think they were interested in healing one of the groups involved, but the group that they had an interest in healing were the perpetrators, not the victims.

Look at his apology to Irish Catholics. Parts of it were so freaking condecending towards the victims that there was no way it would be accepted by them. It was pure risk management, and nothing more. Teh apolgy was offered as a toekn gesture, IMO.

Take some of these brilliantly worded portions:

As you take up the challenges of this hour, I ask you to remember “the rock from which you were hewn” (Is 51:1). Reflect upon the generous, often heroic, contributions made by past generations of Irish men and women to the Church and to humanity as a whole, and let this provide the impetus for honest self-examination and a committed programme of ecclesial and individual renewal.

It is my prayer that, assisted by the intercession of her many saints and purified through penance, the Church in Ireland will overcome the present crisis and become once more a convincing witness to the truth and the goodness of Almighty God, made manifest in his Son Jesus Christ.

Honest self-examination?!?!? Seriously?!?!?

How can he even call for that when just a few paragraphs later he says this pure unadulteraed horse****:

In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularisation of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values.

Seriously, WTF? It looks like the Church is blaming secularism for the Church's wrongdoing.

That attitude makes the church a dangerous place for children in my opinion. If they continue to refuse to acknowledge their complicity and accountabillity, and instead deflect, defend and projec their own failings upon the victims, they'll never become a safe place for children.
 
Fair enough. I would use a smaller number for "last few years". Less than 10.

I would also say that in those last few years the church has tried to catch up to what was done by other groups over the last 20-30 years, but still lags behind.

But as far as knowledge about abuses occuring goes, the church has known for far longer than just the past 10-20 years.



I think they were interested in healing one of the groups involved, but the group that they had an interest in healing were the perpetrators, not the victims.

Look at his apology to Irish Catholics. Parts of it were so freaking condecending towards the victims that there was no way it would be accepted by them. It was pure risk management, and nothing more. Teh apolgy was offered as a toekn gesture, IMO.

Take some of these brilliantly worded portions:



Honest self-examination?!?!? Seriously?!?!?

How can he even call for that when just a few paragraphs later he says this pure unadulteraed horse****:



Seriously, WTF? It looks like the Church is blaming secularism for the Church's wrongdoing.

That attitude makes the church a dangerous place for children in my opinion. If they continue to refuse to acknowledge their complicity and accountabillity, and instead deflect, defend and projec their own failings upon the victims, they'll never become a safe place for children.

I don't think the call for self-examination is directed to the victims at all. Here it is in context:

For my part, considering the gravity of these offences, and the often inadequate response to them on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in your country, I have decided to write this Pastoral Letter to express my closeness to you and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.

It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church. Nevertheless, the task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination. No one imagines that this painful situation will be resolved swiftly. Real progress has been made, yet much more remains to be done. Perseverance and prayer are needed, with great trust in the healing power of God’s grace.

At the same time, I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.

As you take up the challenges of this hour, I ask you to remember “the rock from which you were hewn” (Is 51:1). Reflect upon the generous, often heroic, contributions made by past generations of Irish men and women to the Church and to humanity as a whole, and let this provide the impetus for honest self-examination and a committed programme of ecclesial and individual renewal.

Later there is a section addressed specifically to the victims and their families. I won't quote it, but I think if you look at the whole message of the letter, it's a lot more remorseful than you're reading it to be.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the call for self-examination is directed to the victims at all. Here it is in context:



Later there is a section addressed specifically to the victims and their families. I won't quote it, but I think if you look at the whole message of the letter, it's a lot more remorseful than you're reading it to be.

You are correct. I must admit that I was ignorant of that portion. The source I had been looking at for the text of this letter (which was the original one I saw when it first came out), had a second page that I had never looked at. That is my error, and I apologize for my ignorance.

Here is the section to the victims:

You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church. I know some of you find it difficult even to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred. Yet Christ’s own wounds, transformed by his redemptive sufferings, are the very means by which the power of evil is broken and we are reborn to life and hope. I believe deeply in the healing power of his self-sacrificing love – even in the darkest and most hopeless situations – to bring liberation and the promise of a new beginning.

Speaking to you as a pastor concerned for the good of all God’s children, I humbly ask you to consider what I have said. I pray that, by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his Church – a Church purified by penance and renewed in pastoral charity – you will come to rediscover Christ’s infinite love for each one of you. I am confident that in this way you will be able to find reconciliation, deep inner healing and peace.

While, I'm not all that thrilled about the preachiness of the apology, you are correct that it is definitely more remorseful than how I had portrayed it.

I must rethink my own views on this in light of this.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. I must admit that I was ignorant of that portion. The source I had been looking at for the text of this letter (which was the original one I saw when it first came out), had a second page that I had never looked at. That is my error, and I apologize for my ignorance.

Here is the section to the victims:



While, I'm not all that thrilled about the preachiness of the apology, you are correct that it is definitely more remorseful than how I had portrayed it.

I must rethink my own views on this in light of this.

Tuck, you're just an ol' douchebag.

Says so....

Right under your name.

:mrgreen: :2wave:
 
Tuck, you're just an ol' douchebag.

Says so....

Right under your name.

:mrgreen: :2wave:

:lol: I put it there for times likethese when I realize I have misinformed myself.

Actually, I've been doing more research into Pope Benedict's recent actions and apologies on the topic of child abuse and I must admit that, while it's not exactly where I'd like it to be yet, It's a damned sight better than it has ever been before.

I can't say I'm still not somewhat leery of the Church, in part because I think I'd like to see some more from them before I completely relinquish my distrust in that regard, but I have to admit that my positions stated earlier in this thread have definitely softened in the course of this research.

And I must give credit where it is due. Pope Benedict XVI is definitely making an honest go at addressing the issue and he seems to be vehement about preventing the same things from happening again.
 
I don't even pretend to understand it all. But I do recall asking myself once, during a Dungeons and Dragons convention in Milwaukee, "Will this be a religion in 200 years?" Those people in attendance argued, debated, cussed and discussed as they spoke with undisputable certainty as to what each character represented, stood for, abilities and inabilities, as if they were reality.

But I digress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom