RSS
News


Home Page > News > Female priests 'as sinful' as child abuse, says Vatican

Blogs


comment on article 113 Comments
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail

Female priests 'as sinful' as child abuse, says Vatican


Published Friday, July 16, 2010, 9:15 AM
Updated Friday, July 16, 2010, 9:32 AM

 

Bookmark and Share


The Vatican issued a set of new rules in how they would handle discipline within the Church. Their new rules puts the ordination of female priests alongside pedophilia as a serious crimes which will be subject to investigation.

The “crimes against faith” will be investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) which is being consider the successor of the Inquisition. 

Anyone who is involved in ordaining women priest is automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church as they see it “a crime against sacraments.”

This new rule comes as a shock but high ranks within the Church were displeased with the Pope’s warm welcome to Anglican clergy. Since 1992 women in the Anglican Church will be eligible to become priest.

On Saturday 70 priests met with a Catholic bishop to discus there planned exodus from Rome all because Pope Benedict has met with the Anglican Church. Benedict had discussed the possibility of Anglicans converting to Catholicism and keeping tenets of their own faith.

Within the Catholic Church here have been growing calls to allow women to become priests in the wake of the widespread paedophilia scandal. Women priests have been allowed in the Anglican Church since 1992.

But the Vatican made its stance clear yesterday by comparing such actions to child abuse crimes and issuing new rules for investigating both by the same disciplinary body.

The Holy Office of Inquisition was previously run by Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger.

The new rules also mean that pedophile crimes within the Church will be fast tracked and the statue of limitations on child abuse crimes will be extended by 10 years to 20 years after the victim's 18th birthday. It also has the option to defrock priest and hand them over to the civil courts.

David Clohessy, of The Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests said “Clergy sex crimes must be reported to police and the Vatican must make this a binding policy that is uniformly enforced.”
 

print this article Print
email this articleE-mail


Most recent of 113 comments - See all comments

It may take several minutes for your comment to appear.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 16, 2010, 05:28 AM EDT
And may my God go with you too!! :-)
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 15, 2010, 08:27 PM EDT
We probably have Carroll09 (my mother's maiden name) may your God go with you.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 15, 2010, 04:18 PM EDT
Not "disconcerted" in the least, thank you. You clearly do not know the Catechism verbatim, since you claimed only a few days ago that the Church has "dropped" Purgatory (Though if you need to revise, it's available free on the Vatican website ...Anyway, as I said in one of my very earliest posts to you, I will defend to the death your right to hold different beliefs to me, but what I have never accepted is your branding of people with religious belief as closed-minded or having a limited capacity of free-thought...Anyway, I guess that's yesterday's news - or last month's news to be exact...I wonder have we set a record for the longest-running discussion on I.C.?!?!
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 14, 2010, 04:49 AM EDT
correction by "rote". I can assure you I am capable of discussion without emotional attachment.I will let you know when I am upset, you appear to be at least somewhat "disconcerted". I have remained dignified throughout our discourses and although I do not agree with your stance I do respect your right to debate them to the best of your ability.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 14, 2010, 04:39 AM EDT
I know the catechism verbatim you forget I was once a practicing Catholic,a not so subtle way of brainwashing children. Reading the questions and answer on a daily basis no different than reading the Quran or the Torah by tote.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 14, 2010, 04:09 AM EDT
I have consistently responded to your points; you have merely scoffed at them and moved on to something else. Don't forget to add the Catechism of the Catholic Church to your reading list before you comment on the teachings of the Church again. By the way, don't presume that you've upset me...on the contrary, I believe it is I who have touched a raw nerve with you.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 13, 2010, 06:18 PM EDT
I am sorry if I upset you but I think you are totally missing my point or you do not wish to comment thereon. I am tired of spelling out the "bleeding obvious " I think I'll re-read Diderot and get some sanity back in my life.
Report abuse
Posted by barneyjo on Aug 13, 2010, 07:27 AM EDT
Isnt that what it all boils down to; "FAITH" the Christian message in which we can choose to believe in (or not) The Catholic Church, like any other entity has evolved a method of Governance through the ages. And its members can choose to abide by that method. However, they are not bound to do so in all respects. By the power of our own free will we can choose not to abide by this method of Governance. You, choose not to; I know I no longer consider myself exclusively bound by the rules of an earth-bound institution which has in so many respects departed from the Message of the Gospel in terms of how we should treat each other. "Happy are those who have not seen, but yet still believe"!!Nuff said
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 12, 2010, 07:02 PM EDT
Seanomelbourne - what claims have I falsely attributed to Jesus?? I wrote earlier in this discussion of your atheistic beliefs and my beliefs, making my opinions quite clear - I have no intention of repeating myself now. You on the other hand have made false claims throughout this discussion about what I have said, which I have answered and corrected you on and you have not had the decency to acknowledge these responses in a dignified or coherent manner.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 12, 2010, 06:47 PM EDT
Barneyjo, Carroll09 ignores the fact that mere mortals create canon law he also makes claims falsely attributed to Jesus. Any written word we have were written and interpreted by us mere mortals and that is a fact.
Report abuse
Posted by barneyjo on Aug 12, 2010, 07:14 AM EDT
But there are double standards applied whereby my cousin here in Ireland who was recently ordained as a Priest, had to agree to a vow of celebacy in order to be ordained and the now Catholic Priest in my Sister's Parish does not. My understanding ot the word Catholic is to mean "Universal". I keep coming back to a point I have made many times; " A House divided against itself will not stand" Such inequities in my view are not of God. They are of humanity and created as a means to an end.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 12, 2010, 05:13 AM EDT
What do you mean about the Assumption, Seanomelbourne? It comes to mind for what? The Church has never invented new beliefs which weren't taught by Christ and the Apostles; however, misunderstandings and obscurities concerning this "deposit of faith" have been cleared up - the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 by Pope Pius XII is one example. It wasn't a new belief- his statement was merely clarifying the ancient Catholic teaching. Dogmas are generally only defined when they need to be: transubstantiation is one example where the Church has always held a doctrine, but it is explained more fully at a later stage if there is confusion or questioning of what the Church has taught. So, sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no double standards in terms of dogma.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 11, 2010, 08:37 PM EDT
What's the double standard you speak of? The roman church has certainly changed dogma (or reinforced) dogma when it suits them. The councils of Whitby,Nicaea and Trent come to mind or papal bulls released by popes. "The Assumption"comes to mind. How will you feel when the church eventually allows priest to marry which (in my opinion) is a fait accompli and in your opinion should not change. The church has no problem "re-modeling" dogma as it sees fit and God has no say in it.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 11, 2010, 12:50 PM EDT
Barneyjo- I don't know what the story is with Anglican ministers who convert and are ordained in the Catholic Church...There are, as you have pointed out, restrictions for married priests in other rites in communion with the Holy See such as the impossibility of them being ordained as bishops; they also are not allowed to remarry if their wife dies. As for it being a case of double standards - I don't think so...it might be if Rome was saying that married priests in the Roman Rite is impossible or that the present rule cannot change. However, the discipline of celibacy for Roman Rite priests could change - I don't necessarily think it should change & it certainly wouldn't be the solution to our problems. There would be double-standards if the Church was claiming that such an issue was a matter of faith & morals - an dogma perhaps - in that case it would be unCatholic (i.e. un-universal) if rites were teaching different things on the nature of the Eucharist or the fundamental form of the sacraments, for example.
Report abuse
Posted by barneyjo on Aug 11, 2010, 11:36 AM EDT
I am given to understand that there are several East European Coptic Churches that recognise the Bishop of Rome as the Titular Head of their respective Faiths; the Bishop of Rome being the Pope of course. Within these Churches, Priests are free to Marry. Celibacy is only a factor as it rules out any possibility of Priests within these Churches who are married ever being ordained as Bishops. I was present at a concelebrated Mass where a Priest from one of the Churches I have described participated fully in the mass, the Consecration etc. I learned later that this Priest was married with a "large" family. If this is the case, then this is surely a case of Double Standards. Add to that that in my Sisters Parish in England, her new Curate was formerly a Priest of the Church of England who is married with a young family, and I believe his wife is currently pregnant. Or is this too naieve a view?
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 10, 2010, 05:12 AM EDT
The Catholic Church has most certainly NOT dropped Purgatory - look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you care to find out what the Church actually teaches: it's freely available on the Vatican website. It is no secret that there were married priests in the early Church. As a matter of fact, there are several Catholic rites today in full communion with Rome which have married priests. However, even in the early Church, priests who were married (such as Saints Peter & Paul) promised to live celibately. The current laws on celibacy were already taking shape by the end of the 3rd century at the Council of Elvira (295-302)- it didn't mean that married men couldn't be ordained, but rather that after ordination they had to be celibate. So you ought to separate the requirement for celibacy and the requirement for priests in the Latin Rite to be unmarried. Also, celibacy is not something that is imposed or forced by the Church; it is required, yes, but the choice is freely taken by the candidate after several years discerning whether or not he can live celibately.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 09, 2010, 03:45 PM EDT
The Catholic Church has most certainly NOT dropped Purgatory - look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you care to find out what the Church actually teaches: it's freely available on the Vatican website, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM. It is no secret that there were married priests in the early Church. As a matter of fact, there are several Catholic rites in full communion with Rome which have married priests. However, even in the early Church, priests who were married (such as Saints Peter & Paul) promised to live celibately. The current laws on celibacy were already taking shape by the end of the 3rd century at the Council of Elvira (295-302)- it didn't mean that married men couldn't be ordained, but rather that after ordination they had to be celibate. So you ought to separate the requirement for celibacy and the requirement for priests in the Latin Rite to be unmarried. Also, celibacy is not something that is imposed by the Church; it is required, yes, but the choice is freely taken by the candidate after several years discerning whether or not he can live celibately.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 08, 2010, 08:13 PM EDT
The catholic church has dropped purgatory and I notice you skipped over the ancient "Christian" church having married priests as they certainly did in Ireland up to the 12th century when the pope sent in a British king to "romanize" the church in Ireland. It's all about power.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 08, 2010, 04:33 AM EDT
Seanomelbourne- your ignorance of ecclesial history is staggering. If you were to take the time to examine some peculiarly Catholic doctrines - such as the Eucharist, purgatory, women "priests", Confession to a priest - you will see that they have been taught since the earliest days of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church is much more in line with the early Church than any Protestant Church, one fundamental reason for this being that Protestants reject any Apostolic teaching outside of the Bible, i.e. the many teachings which were not written down initially. On what authority do you judge what Jesus did and did not say on various topics- the Bible even says itself that Jesus did and said much more than could ever be written down.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 08, 2010, 12:46 AM EDT
To say that Jesus set down "edicts" on married priests,female priest,the resurrection,the virgin birth is historically hogwash.The ancient "christian church" did have married priests as far as the other tenets mentioned they are the figment of some males imagination. The catholic church has very little in common to the ancient christian church ,or should we name it the ancient paulian church as Jesus had very little (if anything) to do with it.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 04, 2010, 04:15 AM EDT
My point in this argument has never to prove to you that God exists- no argument that I can give will give you faith to believe in God: He can do that Himself in time. However, I have never made any secret of the fact that I am a Catholic, and as such believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that He appointed certain people and their successors to teach His Truth always. In fact, whether you believe in God or not, if you look into history you will find that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which can claim to come right from Christ Himself. So, in answer to your question, yes, Christ showed His followers 2,000 years ago the model He wanted for the priesthood. Can you post a link to the Church's "edict" please - I haven't read it yet...it's certainly not a get out clause anyway: what the Church, I expect, is saying is that if one chooses to believe in extra-terrestrials, it is not contrary to the faith to do so.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 04, 2010, 12:23 AM EDT
When one is found guilty under civil law they usually go to jail or punitively punished in some other way. Same laws for all people.Some religious states (Sharia or Jewish) for instance mete out punitive punishments if you break their non-secular laws. R.C. canon law thankfully stopped this practice. The only reason they acquiesced was because of free thinkers like us atheist rebelled against forced religious education,therefore setting up secular states with free thought that you enjoy ,and all they are left with is excommunication. Has your God informed you yet of his position in regards to women priests or are you blindly going to follow the edicts of some men playing God so they can convince you he exists. I just read that the Catholic church has issued an edict(2008)saying it's ok to believe in extra terrestrials. Is this some form of "get out" clause "To be sure" "To be sure" "To be sure" i
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 02, 2010, 06:10 AM EDT
Well, you were the one who made the claim about not having used certain words...so I'm not the one in the wrong on that score for having corrected you. It is not in the least disingenuous to say that women who claim to have been ordained priests in the Catholic Church have rejected the Church's teachings- it is a fact, plain to see. Indeed you are the one who is nitpicking when you claim that it is reprehensible to place female "priests" in the same sentence as abusers - I explained in my very first post on this article that the the Vatican document is not equating female "ordination" to sexual abuse. Any act which cuts one off from unity with the Church carries the penalty of excommunication. Both actions go deliberately against the teachings of the Church, and as such, the persons involved are willingly and knowingly cutting themselves off from the Church, which IS EXACTLY WHAT EXCOMMUNICATION IS. It is a penalty which can have a bearing on one's spiritual welfare - however it is only one penalty, and crimes in civil law, such as abuse, must be dealt with in civil law.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 01, 2010, 07:48 PM EDT
Nitpicking would be a better choice of word.When your God informs me that women cannot be priests I will stand corrected until then there is no logical reason why they cannot other than a patriarchal power base. To say they have rejected the teachings of the church is disingenuous, and denigrating them in the same sentence as male priest pedophiles is reprehensible. Thank "God I'm an atheist"
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Aug 01, 2010, 04:22 AM EDT
July 27,2010, 07:16 PM EDT- "when you accept a particular dogma above another". Not that I'm one to be overly pedantic, but you did use the word "dogma"...Anyway, no - I am not saying much ado about nothing, so please don't be putting words in my mouth as if I have relaxed the argument I have been making for the past number of days. What I am saying is that you are obviously not comfortable having the word "dogma" applied to your set of beliefs and therefore there are several other words which one could use in its place. You see, I am not actually stifled by the beliefs of the Catholic Church - I am free to go to another ecclesial community (or none, indeed) if I wish that has different moral standards. In so doing I would no longer be Catholic, just as if you were to abandon a core principle of atheism you are no longer an atheist; females "ordained" as Catholic priests have rejected the teachings of the Church and are no longer Catholic, as are priests who have abused children.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Aug 01, 2010, 02:37 AM EDT
(actually I didn't)I'm glad you agree that "dogma" is an emotionally charged word. We are all bound by a "core set of beliefs". What you are saying is "much ado about nothing". You are stifled by a set of beliefs that you cannot stray from,they are the strictures of your R.C.church. I however can accept my tenets from a " broader Church" for want of a better phrase.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Jul 30, 2010, 04:54 AM EDT
So you didn't use the words "dogma" or "morally" in your last 2 replies (actually you did) - so what? Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says the definition of "dogma" is: "A principle, tenet, or system of these, esp. as laid down by the authority of a Church" - especially as laid down by a Church, but not necessarily. A thesaurus will give words such as doctrine, precept, creed, philosophy...The point is, you can use a variety of words - the word "dogma" obviously makes you uncomfortable. However, the point I have been making for several days now remains, namely that you are bound to a core set of beliefs to at least the same extent that you claim that I and those who believe in God are. Besides all of that, I couldn't possibly 'use the words "dogma" and "morally" in a very loose fashion' - surely I am too closed-minded to do such a thing; your summation, not mine, of course. Calling things as they are is not the same as being emotionally charged over a particular item; on the contrary, you have such an aversion to the word "dogma" being applied in any way to your fixed set of beliefs that I would suggest that it is too emotionally charged for YOU.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Jul 29, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT
You use the words "dogma" and "morally" in a very loose fashion. You may have noticed I have not used either word in the last 2 replies. They are to emotionally charged for you.
Report abuse
Posted by Carroll09 on Jul 29, 2010, 05:41 AM EDT
Seanomelbourne- If free thought "trumps doctrine any day", then (as I asked earlier) why do you allow yourself to be bound so tightly to the most fundamental atheistic dogmas - that there is no God, and not only that, but you cannot even open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that there may be a God. To do so, would be to reject a fundamental and core belief of atheism and hence you would no longer be an atheist - which of course is a concept which can be related to the original story of female "priests" or anyone who rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church: they are no longer Catholic, by their own choosing. You have a belief system just as much as anyone else- only you believe in the ABSENCE of a God, I and others believe in the PRESENCE of a God. You are just as shackled to your beliefs as you claim I am to mine.
Report abuse
Posted by seanomelbourne on Jul 28, 2010, 11:09 PM EDT
I'm not lecturing anybody on doctrine quite the opposite in fact. Free thought trumps doctrine any day. You can believe what you wish but you must ensure you live up your catholic laws and principals. Your last line is noted my son.


Click to learn more from DiscoverIreland.com.
IrishCentral Mobile QR code




remember me on this computer
forget your password?