I see that a Jesuit author (the Rev. James Martin) cited in the article has called this bishop out for inconsistency --
"If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a 'sign of unjust discrimination.' ”
The Rev. Martin is correct, the bishop's ban promotes inconsistency, and Catholics hate inconsistency. The normal Catholic position is that everyone is a sinner, and therefore an attitude of humility about other people's sins (or "sins") is in order.
Messing with funerals is also not in the church's best interest. Catholic funerals have long been used as a soft opportunity to make lapsed Catholics feel comfortable in church once again. As such, they are traditionally relaxed and welcoming.
Basically, if repentance is required for gays, then it should be required for everyone. If repentance is required for gays but not for other people, there is inconsistency.
I beg to differ on one point. My experience with Catholics is that most are inconstant to the core. If they like something Catholicism teaches, they live by it. If they do not like it, they dismiss it.
The Catholic mind is rather weird in that regard. They like their doctrine and policy to be consistent. They just don't feel obliged to always agree with it or follow it.
The difference is that this isnt official church policy. It is the policy of one homophobe. Yes, he is wrong, but it isnt the same as the LDS policy on gays which comes from the top. If a Catholic wishes to leave over this, he can do it and I wouldnt criticize. I am simply pointing out the difference. I suspect even you can see a difference.
I was raised in the Catholic Church and I knew many priests during my childhood and young adulthood.
I never knew a priest who ever gave me pause as to his intentions other than to be honorable and kind.
I was a victim of a very unhappy childhood and more than once one of these priests stepped up and was my champion or was just especially kind to me. Living in a chaotic family, trust me, they helped.
Cate, IIRC about 6% of priests have been abusers (which of course is 6% too many,) leaving about 94% being the good guys. My experience was the same as yours.
It is not just the priests that molested that are the problem. Far more of a problem, IMO, was the systematic hiding of the priests by the Catholic church. This took the participation of the church leadership. That moves the culpability to include the church as a whole.
Summer: I don't know what the IIRC is but I have been looking at several sources (which naturally vary) and it appears that the likelihood of a Catholic priest abusing is roughly the same as in the general population.
I think it's absurd suppose that celibacy causes men to abuse children just as it's absurd to posit that celibacy causes homosexual activity as some would contend about Catholic priests.
Even more preposterous is to assume that would-be abusers would put themselves through 8-9 years of higher education (or more) in order to take holy orders and thus have unfettered access to innocent children. Much easier to just get a job at a day care center.
The central problem is not the pedophile priests (of course a problem but likely no more so than pedophilia in the general population,) but rather that the CC covered it up for so long (and may still be doing so.)
I just think it's really unfair to paint an entire group of people with so broad a brush--and apparently inaccurate to do so.
The reality is that priests are servants and are not giving up a normal life for personal gain. Just as I think it's unfair to assume that every teacher is going to have sex with her student or every police officer is going to shoot the black driver in a routine traffic stop. It's generalizing and unfair to people who are at their core choosing to live a life where their primary goals are to help others. I think that's a commendable goal.
Most of the population think it's weird that priests take vows of celibacy. And it would be untenable for most but just because priests (and nuns) do so doesn't mean they're freaks, perverts or predators as many in the general population cavalierly suggest.
summer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cate, IIRC about 6% of priests have been abusers > (which of course is 6% too many,) leaving about > 94% being the good guys. My experience was the > same as yours.
Well, it leaves around 94% not being pedophiles. Which is better than being a pedophile, absolutely... but it doesn't mean they're necessarily "good guys."
I've met some wonderful catholic priests. And some real asshats. None of them were pedophiles (or at least hadn't been caught).
It wasnt the church as a whole who hid the abuse. It was only bishoos and other leaders who had priests who molested under thier authority and did nothing.Most didnt.
There should have been policies and much more accountability, but how does that make everyone in the church responsible or even every priest? That is as silly as saying I am responsible because some teachers molest kids and some administrators and teachers dont report it. I am responsible for my actions,not the actions of others in my profession. You are a teacher too. Would you apply your standards for the church to yourself?
By "church as a whole" I mean the organization (meaning the upper echelon who make the rules and policies.)
At the beginning of every school year, we teachers have a training that reminds us of our rules and obligations for reporting suspected abuse under law. If we suspect that a colleague is abusing a child, and don't report it, we could be held legally accountable as well.
There were no policies or trainings in place to protect minors in the Catholic church. This is a moral failure on the part of the church as an entity (meaning its leadership.)
Who do you define as leadership? I am guessing there were plenty of clergy who knew nothing aboutb thenabuse. I am a teacher too and we had little to no training on the subject. Yes, we should have, but that doesnt make all administrators guilty. I retired ten years ago and have been subbing part time. As a sub,the only trainning I received on the issue was from a Catholic school.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2017 02:50PM by bona dea.