Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You claim that the nature of the Church's notion of ordination is such that it cannot be revoked. The date that notion was accepted as official doctrine is the date at which the decision was made to keep this child molester a member of the clergy.

Unacceptable legalistic reasoning.

Please explain the following:

"Particularly interesting is the fact that the Church has decided to allow this wolf to remain a member of the clergy. Would anybody care to defend this decision? Perhaps there's a CRISIS magazine article that explains how this wolf was actually helping to improve the abused children's lot in life, possibly by filling the role of the missing father.


What exactly is it you are insinuating with the remarks about "how this wolf was actually helping to improve the abused children's lot in life"

Aren't you clearly and openly referring to a decision you mention in your preceding sentence which I explained could never have been made. You are surely not referring to the age old Churche's decrees on priest ordination here ? ... or are you ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are surely not referring to the age old Churche's decrees on priest ordination here ? ... or are you ?

I am.

My comments about the CRISIS Magazine article were largely speculation, insinuating that their articles are essentially fragile defenses of the horrors of the Church.

Originally posted by David C
Sometime you strike me as learning disabled, or drunk:

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=33594

[quote]Oh please marauder, I simply don't want a pissing match with you. I am not trying to change the subject. I am telling you why I do not wish to debate you.

A trick that can be added to your impressive repertoire of manipulat ...[text shortened]... lear. Shall I continue to dig? This was merely from the first page of a search on your username.

I'm glad you admit I did not use the word "disingenuous".

It is clearly off topic, but it certainly shows what you are really interested in and it's NOT the fate of sex offender victims. Keep on digging if you want to spread the truth about the marauder. I'll think about it whether the term "disingenuous" applies to the marauder's debating style. You certainly have good ideas. Keep them coming and by all means keep on digging.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am.

My comments about the CRISIS Magazine article were largely speculation, insinuating that their articles are essentially fragile defenses of the horrors of the Church.

DoctorS: "I am."

You are now, but you certainly weren't at the time you wrote your opening post. At that time you weren't aware of the facts I was going to present to you, Dear Doctor. First I had to educate you about them. You very subtly changed your position accordingly. I pointed this out to you, remember Dear Doctor ?

You are lying and I will prove this:

DoctorS: "My comments about the CRISIS Magazine article were largely speculation, insinuating that their articles are essentially fragile defenses of the horrors of the Church.

Of course you were speculating and insinuating. I am glad you admit this. You were also insinuating that this non existent decision (of keeping the sex-offender as a member of the RC clergy) was made on the grounds you mentioned in your remarks about the Crisis magazine. How can you insinuate an age-old decision was made on the basis of these present speculations of yours ? As I have been pointing out to you this can never be the case. You are wriggling like a cought eal, Dear Doctor.

Your self-proclaimed kingship of the realm of rationality and logic once again turns out to be a fraud. Your crown made of fool's gold once again tumbles on the granite floor of your formalism and once again it echoes your pretentiousness, your ignorance and your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Your self-proclaimed kingship of the realm of rationality and logic once again turns out to be a fraud. Your crown made of fool's gold once again tumbled on the granite floor of your formalism and once again echoes your pretentiousness, your ignorance and your hypocrisy.

You live in a fantasy world. I never claimed to be the king.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You live in a fantasy world. I never claimed to be the king.

😀 😵 😀

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You live in a fantasy world. I never claimed to be the king.

That's a given, even if you HAD claimed to be the king.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

It is clearly off topic, but it certainly shows what you are really interested in and it's NOT the fate of sex offender victims.

Are you doing anything to help the situation by maintaining loyalty to an organization that harbors these wolves under the umbrella of ordination? I'm doing my part, helping to humiliate the Church. Somebody obviously needs to shame them into changing their ways, since they won't do it of their own volition. (The Bishops would still be operating a sex racket, moving known molesters here and there, if they hadn't been exposed and shamed into desisting.) Can you think of any other organization that allows thousands of, or even any, convicted child molesters to remain among its esteemed echelon?

And you still haven't really defended the decision to allow him to remain in the clergy. You've just said that that's how its always been done, and that case-by-case decisions are unnecessary since the decision was made summarily a long, long time ago. You haven't said that it was a good decision, or why.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you doing anything to help the situation by maintaining loyalty to an organization that harbors these wolves under the umbrella of ordination? I'm doing my part, helping to humiliate the Church. Somebody obviously needs to shame them into changing their ways, since they won't do it of their own volition. (The Bishops would still be operating ...[text shortened]... as made summarily a long, long time ago. You haven't said that it was a good decision, or why.

(1) I don’t think Ivanhoe is defending this, or any, child molester.

(2) I think that the institutional church and the people who govern it, in this country anyway, have behaved very irresponsibly and negligently with regard to shielding such priests in the past. I don’t think there are any excuses for that. I think that shaming them into better behavior is a relevant course of action.

With that said—

(3) Catholic dogma, as I understand it, does not permit the church to defrock a priest based on immoral behavior (this is different from Protestantism). What they can do is remove him from public contact—hopefully, they can (should) report him to the legal authorities, where innocence or guilt can ultimately be determined by trial.

As I understand it, if this priest were the only one I could find from which to receive the eucharist, if I were at death’s door for example, the spiritual efficacy of that sacrament, as it works in me, would not be diminished by the immorality of the priest. This is a spiritual, even mystical, aspect of it in the church. In Protestant churches, the efficacy of the sacraments depends even less on who administers them, and almost entirely on the faith of the recipient.

Originally posted by vistesd

(3) Catholic dogma, as I understand it, does not permit the church to defrock a priest based on immoral behavior (this is different from Protestantism).

I have to say, so what? Change the dogma! Even if they make the outlandish claim that its nature is such that it can't be changed, then the Church can still abandon it or defy it.

Suppose I make a promise to myself that I will kill anybody who gives me the finger. Then, somebody gives me the finger and I kill them. Can I excuse the murder by saying that my hands were tied, that I wasn't permitted to refrain from committing it? That's absurd. I made the rule myself, and I could have chosen to change, abandon or defy it.

If the Church establishes and accepts a dogma, they cannot later claim that their hands are tied, that the dogma forces them to take certain actions. It's absurd for them to claim that a priest cannot be defrocked.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have to say, so what? Change the dogma! Even if they make the outlandish claim that its nature is such that it can't be changed, then the Church can still abandon it or defy it.

Suppose I make a promise to myself that I will kill anybody who gives me the finger. Then, somebody gives me the finger and I kill them. Can I excuse the murder by ...[text shortened]... them to take certain actions. It's absurd for them to claim that a priest cannot be defrocked.

I don't know how dogma gets changed in the RCC, once doctrine becomes dogma. It appears to be much more difficult than in Protestant churches. I am only saying that--and my understanding may be wrong--that "defrocking" refers to the mystical stand of the priest as mediator of sacramental grace, and I think that the Catholic understanding is that this cannot be done based on behavior, even if in all other "institutional" respects the priest is removed from priesthood. (Maybe I'm wrong; I'm not Catholic; Protestant "priests" can be defrocked for political activity, at least in some churches.) You can disagree with that, but I think that the church's differentiation between the "institutional" and the "spiritual/mystical" at least needs to be understood--if for no other reason than that one knows exactly what one is disagreeing with.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have to say, so what? Change the dogma! Even if they make the outlandish claim that its nature is such that it can't be changed, then the Church can still abandon it or defy it.

Suppose I make a promise to myself that I will kill anybody who gives me the finger. Then, somebody gives me the finger and I kill them. Can I excuse the murder by ...[text shortened]... them to take certain actions. It's absurd for them to claim that a priest cannot be defrocked.

To be honest, I'd be suprised if a week didn't go by when a child WASN'T molested by a priest. The sort of sickos the role attracts just means there's less whacko pop stars around than there could be.

If you allow such things as religion to perpetuate, the disgusting elements of society will naturally gravitate to it, be sheltered and even empowered by it.

Originally posted by fooey
To be honest, I'd be suprised if a week didn't go by when a child WASN'T molested by a priest.

That's probably true. Here's another news article from the same city as the original in this thread, dated just five days later, documenting yet another priest recently charged with 10 counts.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1064026.php/Priest_charged_with_sexual_molestation

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I just thought I'd post an article in the style of ivanhoe. Although I don't have a Vatican article, here's the latest Catholic news from Arizona.

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4138302

[b]Former priest convicted of child molestation,
AP 11/18/05

A Roman Cath ...[text shortened]... improve the abused children's lot in life, possibly by filling the role of the missing father.[/b]

Particularly interesting is the fact that the Church has decided to allow this wolf to remain a member of the clergy. Would anybody care to defend this decision?

The answer is quite simple - the sacrament of holy orders leaves an indelible mark on the person's soul; once ordained, a person remains a priest for the rest of his life.

EDIT: Just saw ivanhoe's response.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well sure it is possible. The only missing prerequisite seems to be the modification of the doctrine that dictates the nature of ordination or the policy that disallows its revocation. With Jesus, all things are possible.

Well sure it is possible.

Nope - priestly ordination is a permanent ontological change of the candidate's soul/nature.

With Jesus, all things are possible

Only things that are logically possible. It is logically impossible to reverse an irreversible event.