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?

[Epimethean]

Some reading for our female knuckledragger.

"In his book The Case Of The Pope, Geoffrey Robertson criticises Bertone for his hyperbolic rejection of the "demand that a bishop be obligated to contact police to denounce a priest who had admitted paedophilia". Bertone argued that "if a priest cannot confide in his bishop for fear of being denounced then it would mean that there is no more liberty of conscience". As recently as Easter 2010, Bertone has publicly blamed the child sex scandal on homosexual infiltration of the clergy, contrary to the findings of a report from 2003 commissioned by the Holy See, which found no causal link."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarcisio_Be...the_Church

And, since you are claiming that the Vatican itself has never covered up child abuse:

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/p...81454.html

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/Germany_...sex_abuses

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/vatican_...ar_society

You are a POE, aren't you?

BTW, watch your acronyms, ma'am. God is watching!

[Annik]

I feel like most of these "debates" would be concluded more quickly if one started off with, "Do you believe the Catholic Church and/or the Pope are infallible?"

[Epimethean]

Yeah, but then we couldn't fuck with the dumbasses.

[Annik]

I think Aiza is trying to be as rational as she can. While the basis of her arguments are usually flawed in my view, she does her best to construct them well. I don't consider her a dumb ass, so much as deluded by Jesus.

[Epimethean]

I consider her a dumbass. If reason is offered and rejected, and unreason blithely adhered to, dumbassery occurs. Being deluded by an imaginary friend despite clear lack of evidence of the existence of said person is also a dumbass flag.

[Aiza]

Some reading for our female knuckledragger.

So basically you have absolutely nothing which suggests Cardinal Bertrone covered up abuse? Lovely.

"Says something I disagree with" (and I disagree with him as well, mind) =/= "Covered up pedophilia" thank you.

And, since you are claiming that the Vatican itself has never covered up child abuse:

Ugh wow.

1-3) The first letter says absolutely nothing about reporting people to the police or not--rather it notes that some of the instructions in their own framework document don't comply with Vatican norms, and also there is some "reservations" about their own reporting policy (and just that, not an "order"), in which the Irish norms specifically don't allow for exceptions on behalf of the victims:

"The recommended reporting policy may deter such people from coming forward or may be perceived by those who do come forward as an insensitive and heavy-handed response by Church authorities. This is particularly so where the complaint relates to incidents of abuse many years earlier.

Nonetheless, undertakings of absolute confidentiality should not be given but rather the information should be expressly received within the terms of this reporting policy."

And its true that it is semi-problematic and does need to be given thought. As a former abuse victim myself I agree that it can be an ugly situation, and I am unsure of the answer in these types of cases. Nothing in it says to "keep it within the Church". That's a total invention of your own articles and an ugly one at that.

The second of these letters (in #3) doesn't involve any child abuse at all either so I'm not going to bother looking up the supporting documentation for it.

2) This is just heresay from a German politician with no evidence backing her up.

I apologize if any given acronym offended you.

[Epimethean]

Ah, yes, of course, cop out du jour. Since all you have to cling to is heresay (faith) and myth, I should think you would be more sympathetic to the accusations of victims. OK, that's not true: You would only be sympathetic if those accusations came against another sect or cult rather than your own.

Regarding the first of the three links:

'The letter instructs Irish bishops that their new policy of reporting of suspected crimes "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature."'

Sorry, but it is not I who is inventing there.


Regarding the second, some further reading. 170 victims and their accusations?

http://suite101.com/article/german-pries...se-a211650

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/0...H820100602

Regarding the third, which was there to underscore the first, let's just focus on the first letter.

Apostolic Nunciature In Ireland
N. 808/97
Dublin, 31 January 1997
Strictly Confidential
Your Excellency,
The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse of minors by clerics and the document entitled “Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response”, published by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee.
The Congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.
The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature”.
Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many of the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies.

To: the Members of the Irish Episcopal Conference – their Dioceses.
For these reasons and because the abovementioned text is not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document, I am directed to inform the individual Bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in its regard, underlining that in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchical recourse against his Bishop.
Asking you to kindly let me know of the safe receipt of this letter and with the assurance of my cordial regard, I am [sic]
Yours sincerely in Christ,
+Luciano Storero
Apostolic Nuncio

[Ziploc Surprise]

@ Aiza, you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I've explained my point twice now even though it was clear the first time. It is evident from the other responses that my point was clear enough to understand so, even though you remain unconvinced, I'd say I've done a sufficient job of presenting my argument The evidence for this exists; my arguments are there if you wish to go back and read them correctly. I do not have time to play the poor reading comprehension game with you.

[Aiza]

@Ziploc, you said the Vatican was making light of child abuse, in spite of giving it the maximum penalty. Correct?

Ah, yes, of course, cop out du jour. Since all you have to cling to is heresay (faith) and myth, I should think you would be more sympathetic to the accusations of victims.

What? This isn't even an accusation from a victim, its a baseless accusation from a politician which you tried to post as proof.

Your first link is about the Pope's brother being aware of corporal punishment back in the day, it also briefly makes a butchered quote from Crimen sollicitationis which was in reference to ecclesiastical trials only, which do not preclude criminal trials.

The second of your links is just about a Bishop being under suspicion, not the Vatican.

There is no cop outs here, this is just you posting a handful of poorly researched articles and me just stating a few pretty simple facts. Repeating a lie a lot of times doesn't make it the truth.