RCC says making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child.

[Aiza]

I'm now wondering if you're a poe.

You said "Both sins receive the highest level of discipline, as they should." (BTW my jaw dropped when I read that).

I said " Crimes should be weighted by the damage they do." Then I contrasted the damage that child rape does vs. any damage a female in the ministry might do. The former is horrible and long lasting the latter does no damage whatsoever. There is no equating these two things. There is no reason to put these two things on the same level. One is a crime and the other isn't. If you look at in terms of how much damage these things do to a person it is sick and callous to equate them. At a time when the RCC is repeatedly getting in trouble for covering up child abuse the last thing they need for their public relations is yet another comment and/or action that suggests a flippant attitude. Yet they keep doing it.

I'll say it again it's sick to call something that does no damage a sin that is anywhere near the gravity of the sin of child abuse. The RCC have their heads in their asses.

As for your comments about cherry picking and giving no justification for the sickness blah, blah, blah, go back and read what I wrote; this time with a little better reading comprehension.

I promise you I am not a poe. No one is equating these two things other than the OP and a few people ITT, including yourself, who insist that "same punishment" means they are the same somehow.

Child abusing priests receive the maximum punishment possible. What about that suggests a "flippant attitude"? Or are you seeing a flippant attitude just because you want to, even though you have little reason to think as such?

Honestly your post suggests that if we give anything else the maximum punishment that is being "flippant" toward child abuse which is just plain dumb. I'm sorry to say that but its true.

Of course the President isn't responsible for corruption at a local school board. A local school board does not fall under the President's area of responsibility. Do I really have to explain that?

But a local parish DOES fall under the responsibility and authority of the Vatican. Do you see the difference?

Um, no, local parishes don't fall under the responsibility of the Vatican--and they only fall under their authority in the sense of the responsibilities of Faith+Morals. I am under the authority of the Vatican and the president as well, in the sense that they both can influence laws which I follow.

In terms of the minutiae of running a local parish, there is no way that the Vatican could run all the parishes in the world. That is absurd, even more ridiculous than the president handling minute school boards across the nation. Most of the responsibility goes to the pastor, with parish assignments and such to be handled by the bishop.

Typical cop out, and expected. William Lynn and Tarcisio Bertone seem to be receiving some rather negative attention for cover ups lately, and they work on a slightly bigger scale than a single parish.

Really?

OK I'll leave the stuff from hundreds of years ago alone for now. Msgr. William Lynn worked at the level of Archdiocese--and yes, this is the Bishop's level, where I noted cover-ups occurred. The Archdiocese is responsible for parish assignments. And no, His Eminence Tarcisio Bertone never covered up child abuse. Wtf?