Former priest convicted of child molestation

Originally posted by lucifershammer

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.

"an indelible mark on the person's soul" ? I thought that's what rape left.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It's interesting that the Church refuses to modify its notion of ordination. (And its chosen notion of ordination does imply that it has decided to allow the wolf to remain an ordained member of the clergy.)

It seems to me that a reasonable modification would be that if a priest abuses the powers that his ordination entitles him to in a way that ...[text shortened]... ncompatible with the role of a church leader, then that priest's ordination shall be nullified.

It's interesting that the Church refuses to modify its notion of ordination.

Within the context of Church teaching, ordination is not a concept that the Church has any prerogative to modify - only God can do that.

It seems to me that a reasonable modification would be that if a priest abuses the powers that his ordination entitles him to in a way that is grossly incongruent with the teachings of Christ and incompatible with the role of a church leader, then that priest's ordination shall be nullified.

As ivanhoe says, you have a very legalistic way of thinking. Priesthood is just another job for you (and unfortunately, even some priests see it this way) - whereas priesthood in Catholic teaching represents a metaphysical reality.

Originally posted by vistesd
(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 behav ...[text shortened]... ts depends even less on who administers them, and almost entirely on the faith of the recipient.

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.

Actually, even if I had a million other priests to choose from, the validity of this priest's sacraments is not decreased. It's the ex opere operato principle.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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.

Actually, even if I had a million other priests to choose from, the ...[text shortened]... dity of this priest's sacraments is not decreased. It's the ex opere operato principle.[/b]

Yes; I didn't phrase that well. I didn't mean the "if...only" as a conditional.

Within the context of Church teaching, ordination is not a concept that the Church has any prerogative to modify - only God can do that.

Question: is it possible for God to ordain without the church?

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.

It's absurd for them to claim that a priest cannot be defrocked.

Tell me something - what does "de-ordaining" a priest achieve that removing him from public ministry does not?

Originally posted by kirksey957
"an indelible mark on the person's soul" ? I thought that's what rape left.

Nope.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Well sure it is possible.

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

But this is just something that they have chosen to accept as true, much like my murdering example. The promise I made to myself changed my ontology - I no longer exist as a person free to refrain from murdering someone who gives me the finger. Both cases are absurd.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes; I didn't phrase that well. I didn't mean the "if...only" as a conditional.

[b]Within the context of Church teaching, ordination is not a concept that the Church has any prerogative to modify - only God can do that.

Question: is it possible for God to ordain without the church?[/b]

Question: is it possible for God to ordain without the church?

Of course - what do you think the Apostles were? Or St. Paul for that matter?

However, the person ordained automatically becomes a member of the Church - whether he realises it or not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It's absurd for them to claim that a priest cannot be defrocked.

Tell me something - what does "de-ordaining" a priest achieve that removing him from public ministry does not?[/b]

It allows a church member to say that no convicted child molesters are part of his clergy. It also makes the statement that child molesting is incompatible with the nature of a clergyman. As is, the church is saying that child molesting can in fact be compatible with the nature of a clergyman.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Nope.

Have you ever been in prison and been raped by a big black man? That's what a priest looks like to a little boy. I don't recommend it.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Have you ever been in prison and been raped by a big black man?

Yeah, I'd hate to share a cell with Dr. S.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But this is just something that they have chosen to accept as true, much like my murdering example. The promise I made to myself changed my ontology - I no longer exist as a person free to refrain from murdering someone who gives me the finger. Both cases are absurd.

But this is just something that they have chosen to accept as true

The Church disagrees. It has accepted it as true because it is true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It allows a church member to say that no convicted child molesters are part of his clergy. It also makes the statement that child molesting is incompatible with the nature of a clergyman. As is, the church is saying that child molesting can in fact be compatible with the nature of a clergyman.

So what?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Have you ever been in prison and been raped by a big black man? That's what a priest looks like to a little boy. I don't recommend it.

Neither do I. But that doesn't mean it represents a change of one's soul.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It has accepted it as true because it is true.

Under what epistemic criteria? Are you saying that all people who don't believe accordingly are objectively wrong? Would you look a Jew in the eye and tell him that you know that he is wrong for not accepting this objective truth?