Women as bad as pedophiles?

[Hyena Dandy]

See how I see it is, they are giving the same punishment for something that isn't nearly on the same level, and therefore it must be on the same level in their view of things. If it wasn't why the same punishment? It's not really a huge leap in thinking.

Can you think of another punishment the church can inflict, then?

[Ree]

Ree, just to give you a heads up, celibacy hasn’t always been disallowed by the RCC.

I didn't say it was.

Perhaps I used a poor choice of phrasing when I said it was a "major foundation".

Regardless of how it came to be that way, it is a vow taken by priests now, however, and sexual misconduct is a breaking of that vow, and as such, merits excommunication.

I hope you don't mind if I use an extended metaphor (or analogy. Or simile. I forget) to explain.
<snip>

Very well stated. Excellent points.
I think it illustrates the point perfectly.

[Hyena Dandy]

Very well stated. Excellent points.
I think it illustrates the point perfectly.

Thank you.

[muses_nightmare]

I don't know, I'm sure there's something, throwing people out of your faith doesn't seem like a solution. Also, punishment shouldn't be needed in the first place, that's the real problem I have with this. Frankly, I think Catholicism is full of outdated beliefs about the role of women, as well as about a lot of other things, but that's just me. (I'm sure someone's going to ask what I'd think if someone said that about my faith, and frankly it wouldn't bother me. Just to head that question off.)

[Exaspera]

There is a general distaste for women in the Catholic faith, at least from an official standpoint.

The Inquisition was a bit more than a general distaste for women, gay people, and pretty much anyone else who did not follow the rules that were continually changed.

[Hyena Dandy]

The Inquisition was a bit more than a general distaste for women, gay people, and pretty much anyone else who did not follow the rules that were continually changed.

Yes, yes it was. It was also several hundred years ago, so, you know... There's that. We even apologized. Wasn't a long apology, sure, but we really did mean it. Promise. I mean, not much you can say beyond "I'm sorry" is there?

I don't know, I'm sure there's something, throwing people out of your faith doesn't seem like a solution. Also, punishment shouldn't be needed in the first place, that's the real problem I have with this. Frankly, I think Catholicism is full of outdated beliefs about the role of women, as well as about a lot of other things, but that's just me. (I'm sure someone's going to ask what I'd think if someone said that about my faith, and frankly it wouldn't bother me. Just to head that question off.)

Oh, I agree. I'd rather women be allowed to be priests too. But I'm also in favor of anyone who is presenting themselves as a priest who isn't, but is a Catholic, being excommunicated. If they aren't and aren't Catholic either, there's not much the Church can do about it.

I won't say women SHOULDN'T be able to be priests, but as it is, they AREN'T. Do I want that to change? Yes. I'm not saying its a good rule. There's a lot of things the Church and I disagree on. Therefore, I am not a priest. I am a Catholic, though, and as such, I believe a priest is ordained with the ability to perform the sacraments, and someone who isn't a priest is not ordained with the ability to perform the sacraments. And someone performing them who is not given the authority to should be excommunicated.

I'm perfectly fine with wanting to reform the Catholic church so that women CAN become priests. And if you can't accept a church that doesn't allow women in its ministry, I don't see why you shouldn't leave.

Women SHOULD be able to be priests. But they aren't. So a woman being a priest is clearly flouting Catholic doctrine. And a priest who felt they could ignore Catholic doctrine because they didn't like it would (and should) be excommunicated.

Does this make sense?

[smileyeagle1021]

Can you think of another punishment the church can inflict, then?

They could take a page out of the LDS church's book.
The LDS has something that I actually think is a really good concept.
There is something called "disfellowship"
The person is stripped of any calling they may have and is not permitted to partake in the sacrament, but only for a certain amount of time. The amount of time that they are not permitted to hold a calling or partake in the sacrament is directly proportionate to the seriousness of their wrong doing. The only people who are excommunicated are those who are viewed to be beyond reconciliation with church teachings. The idea is that disfellowship is for people who are not worthy of being members of the church but have shown a genuine interest in coming back into the fold. Now there are some people who have a genuine interest in returning to the church who will still be fully excommunicated, because while the individual feels they can reconcile with the church, the church for whatever reason does not believe the person can ever truly be brought back in (examples of crimes, and no, I don't agree with all of these though I do agree with a lot, are homosexuality unless the person has indicated they wish to overcome their homosexuality, pedophilia, joining under false pretenses, such as joining for no other reason than to gain the trust of other members in order to commit fraud against them, and most crimes eligible for the death penalty in Utah). Even then, there is no time limit to appeal an excommunication. It is not unheard of for someone who was excommunicated decades in the past to come back and show that they are truly reformed and repentant and be permitted membership in the church again (though without their preisthood or any calling).

[muses_nightmare]

It makes sense. and really, when it comes down to it, unless they are inflicting themselves on me, I don't care what the Catholic church does. I was posting the story because I thought it would spark a bit of a conversation here, someone posted it on their FB.

Even if they change their views on women, I'd never be Catholic, or any other form of Christian.

[infinitemonkies]

That's going way too far.
Saying that a being a female priest is just as bad as being a rapist pedophile is an outrage, and an insult to god-fearing, church-going, rapist pedophiles everywhere.

Recall if you will the events of a year or so ago in South America: A good catholic man in Argentina (or was it Venezuela?) rapes his 9-year old step-daughter, who becomes pregnant. Doctors preform an emergency abortion to save the 9 year olds life. She is excommunicated and will go to hell. The rapist pedophile is not excommunicated, and has a chance to repent his sins and be forgiven by god.

[Ree]

They could take a page out of the LDS church's book.
The LDS has something that I actually think is a really good concept.
There is something called "disfellowship"
The person is stripped of any calling they may have and is not permitted to partake in the sacrament, but only for a certain amount of time. The amount of time that they are not permitted to hold a calling or partake in the sacrament is directly proportionate to the seriousness of their wrong doing.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure an excommunicated person can be reinstated if certain conditions are met.

(I reserve the right to be wrong on that point, though.)

The only people who are excommunicated are those who are viewed to be beyond reconciliation with church teachings.

That's the view by the Catholic church. They don't take excommunication lightly, or hand it out willy nilly, even if some outside the church feel they do.

A church has the right to set its own rules and have certain expectations, just as any society or organization does.

If a person is not going to follow the beliefs and teachings of a church then why continue to call one's self a member of that group and why continue to participate in the sacraments within that church?

[smileyeagle1021]

If a person is not going to follow the beliefs and teachings of a church then why continue to call one's self a member of that group and why continue to participate in the sacraments within that church?

Started a new thread as to not threadjack

For the rest, I never said that Catholicism didn't take excommunication seriously, just pointed out that it would be better if they had an intermediary step for those borderline cases where something must be done yet it is not clear whether or not excommunication is necessary.

[Ree]

For the rest, I never said that Catholicism didn't take excommunication seriously

I didn't say that you did.

Although I quoted you in my post, my comment was more addressed to others who seem to think the church goes around slapping excommunication on just anybody for not toeing the line.

[Fryk]

I don't see this as the RCC equating the two crimes. Excommunication is pretty must the worst, and maybe the only real punishment they have. It's not that the church sees the crimes as equal, it's that they don't have many other options for punishment.

[KitterCat]

Hobbs, I very well understand that the RCC can place its own rules and punishments. That still doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the Vatican doesn’t at times forget about timing and make decisions with out using their heads. As I said again, if they don’t want it to be so sensationalized all they had to do was issue a second decree later.

Hyena Dandy, I used a atheist blog simply because they actually had their history correct. . Surprisingly most Roman Catholics don’t know that at one time married priests were permitted, or that there are loopholes to do it now.

[Ree]

Surprisingly most Roman Catholics don’t know that at one time married priests were permitted, or that there are loopholes to do it now.

I was aware of it.
I actually know a man who is a married priest. He was a married minister in another church who converted to Catholicism and was allowed to continue as a priest.

I know another priest who was ordained after his wife died.

I also know that there were married priests at one time, and that there were even married popes.

The fact is, it's not a common situation, and the vow of celibacy is still factored in there in some way.