Ask the Roman Catholic -- All kinds of qu

Hi,

Do you have some questions about Roman Catholicism? Want to point out some painful inconsistency?

Go ahead. I will either directly answer or figure it out the answer. I am sure that other Roman Catholics will join me at some point to answer questions as well.

Good question, Justinian.

The last I was told, the robes of the priest were clerical robes that Roman officials used. The pope's garment is based, according to my parish priest of my childhood, the robes of a Roman high official.

Of course, like all of these things, symbolism has been pushed into it. I ignored what it means, and I don't think that it is that important to look too hard into it.

Also, it seems that the garment changes according to who is in office. Our last pope, John Paul II, had remarkably good taste, avoiding to use the flashy stuff unless required by the liturgy.

Pope Ratzinger doesn't seem to have the same decorum. He likes the gaudy stuff, even to the point of bringing back a hat which popes from centuries ago used and today looks like Santa Clos's hat.


Some smartalecks may say hat he his is ho, ho, ho liness, but that is out of line.

More on the hat here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4551348.stm


Edited by hugoestr - 01-Nov-2007 at 22:02

Okay, here is another one:   why is the vatican so secretive with regards to its archives?  Should they open up the vault?  It seems out of place in this era to have them refuse to discuss anything that might be contained within and only allowing those at the top of the catholic hierarchy to learn of its secrets.  Is there information in there that condemns the catholic church or something?  DaVinci code and all that, I mean what gives?

I was raised Roman-Catholic, myself... that's a church I can do without. I don't dig being told I'm sinful for going about the day-to-day business of life. The Catholic church produced the best minds of the 12th century... no longer relevant in the 21st century.

I guess my only question for a still practicing Catholic is this... why'd the priests do all that stuff to those little kids?

So, in effect, you're saying that homosexuals, with no better outlook on life, became priests? Are you equating homosexuals with pederasts now? That doesn't seem fair to homosexuals (whom I support in both a civil and personal movement; I am against all forms of societal repression), to equate them with those who molest children.

Ephebophiles, whatever... the kids weren't old enough to make their own decisions; they weren't consenting adults. I believe the term "kids" applies, implying that they weren't adults. Not a difficult concept. To apply dead Greek terms implies a semanticism not unlike the way the Church does. And, for the record, plenty of people weren't scared to come out in the 60's... why are "kids" still being touched in our contemporary era? Unacceptable. I'm not implying that there's anything inherent in Catholic doctrine that promotes pedophilia... but hell, there was a lot of it (one instance being too many)... to be so pervasive seems to me akin to betrayal of the morals of the idyll; an anti-Catholic trend if you will. And they wonder why no one goes to confession anymore.

A skeptical "Catholic"
BJC

So, in effect, you're saying that homosexuals, with no better outlook on life, became priests?

Yes Catholics who were homosexual became priests because "coming out" wasn't an option at the time they became ordained.

Are you equating homosexuals with pederasts now?

No, not all but due to independent circumstances those accused chose to become pederasts.

Ephebophiles, whatever... the kids weren't old enough to make their own decisions; they weren't consenting adults.

I dare say that the governments of Canada, Japan, and Spain as well as the states of Hawaii, Georgia and Indiana disagree with you in that regard. As all of these jurisdictions believe that 14-16 year olds can make their own decisions about sex.

To apply dead Greek terms implies a semanticism not unlike the way the Church does.

Dead greek term? I was under the impression that was the proper definition for an attraction to post-pubescent juveniles. As opposed to paedophilia which is an attraction to pre-pubescent juveniles. Which if you tell me there's no difference between the two, I and biology must respectfully disagree with you.

why are "kids" still being touched in our contemporary era?

Um...AFAIK the cases of priest abuse are in the majority cases over 20 years old. I'm not sure what you mean contemporary era? The problem was mishandled by an organization that wasn't designed with this problem in mind. They've learned from this and tried to correct the mistake as best they can. I have a feeling you'd damn them no matter what they did.

PS- small proportions of "incidents" but still numerous occurrences... definitely a couple millions of dollars in Vatican hush money.

I seriously disagree with the idea that it's "hush" money. The church was liable for the wrongs committed they did the only thing they could do to set it right. Priests accused faced civil courts and damages were paid out to the victims. I don't know what else you think the church could/should have done. It's not like the Pope has a time machine inside of St. Peter's Basilica.

I'm not implying that there's anything inherent in Catholic doctrine that promotes pedophilia... but hell, there was a lot of it (one instance being too many)... to be so pervasive seems to me akin to betrayal of the morals of the idyll;

As I said, until the scandals came out (mostly in the Boston archdiocese) I never even imagined that this was a common occurence. I never felt betrayed because my priests actually did what they were supposed to do, and ever other catholic i talked to had a similar experience so I don't know where this "it was rampant" thing comes from.

I ask you Brian, since you were raised Catholic did you know of a priest that molesting anyone?

Hi, Brian,

I agree with you in some of the key points. The Roman Church should have been reporting to the civil authorities every case that they learned about. Instead they did pay out hush money, and just moved the predator priest to another parish.

My wife and I have many conversations about this. Why did they do this? Were they afraid of the social stigma of priests being sexual predators? Or was it that they couldn't afford to lose priests since there is such a strong priest shortage?

Whatever the reason, the Church as an institution failed morally to do what was right. At the very least they could have made sure that the predators were not exposed to children by placing them in post where they couldn't be in contact with them.

Yes, the modern Catholic Church failed... yet again I know several Catholics who say that they won't give any money until this situation has been cleared up. I am among them

That said, the religious teachings should be judge apart from their practitioners. There is no religion that I know that has lived up to its the moral precepts (although there are some that seem to do a better job than others.)

Originally posted by JanusRook why is the vatican so secretive with regards to its archives? Uh....they're not? Should they open up the vault? See the above link. It seems out of place in this era to have them refuse to discuss anything that might be contained within and only allowing those at the top of the catholic hierarchy to learn of its secrets.  Is there information in there that condemns the catholic church or something? No no, it's not as crazy as all that. The Vatican has since the nineteenth century allowed scholars, religious and secular access to the Vatican secret archives. In fact the only reason that the archives were closed to the public at all was because in the period of the reformation many works were being ransacked and destroyed by various political opponents, and in an attempt to preserve the works only those most trusted to the Holy See had access to them. In fact the Secret Archives runs along the same lines as any Library with ancient texts (i.e. you can't just waltz into the Library of Congress and take a look at the original Constitution without academic credentials). Also due to sensitive information that might leak out the records are put on a 75 year hold (this is standard just look at the findings of the JFK assassination). The only actual "Secret" documents are held in the Apostolic Penitentiary, and these are kept secret only because they have to deal with Confessionals and as such cannot be made public.

Janus, are you American?

Yes as my sig states I'm a proud Cincinnatian.

then hundreds of lawsuits flooded Catholic archdiocese all over the country.

And of course all of those cases were legitimate and not just random anti-religious people wanting to make a quick buck in the maelstrom (again I agree the vast majority of those cases were legitimate).

I've not seen one recorded case, regardless of faith, of someone actually going to heaven.

From Luke:

23:39. And one of those robbers who were hanged blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 23:40. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation? 23:41. And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil. 23:42. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. 23:43. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

When is the Roman Catholic church going to forbid celibacy... It seems to me it doesn't make sense, and is not even a Catholic idea, because other Catholic churches, the Orthodox, the Oriental, the Anglican, etc. don't follow that rule.

It would seem a bit ridiculous for the church to forbid celibacy. Seeing as how the most honored persons in the church were celibate their whole lives for example the Virgin Mary, Jesus and various church fathers. Also the monastic orders still require celibacy.

I agree that Celibacy should not be required to receive Holy Orders, but it is put in place as WolfHound said to prevent Nepotism from running rampant in the church. I don't think that this should be a major issue in the modern era but it is what the church sees as most fitting thus catholics are obliged to obey this demand.

Besides, when are you going to allow women to be priests? To stop the "club of Tobby" (monopoly of men)

Men certainly do not have a monopoly on the church, just see the Marian devotion the massive numbers of women saints and the relaxation on the rules regarding assistants during mass. There is a large tradition in the orthodox churches of priests acting in a role as representatives of Christ. And as God chose to come to earth as a man, and as God chose only male Apostles as his heirs it is probably correct to assume that God has chosen men to be priests. After all a woman can no more be a priest than a man can give birth, human beings were designed to have differentiation between the sexes and to deny this fact of nature is an error.

God chose men to be priests, but not women? Haha, sure, just like 'he' made men first and women second of Adam's rib in that mythical garden somewhere in the desert, six thousand years ago, right?

First off, I am not a young earth creationist so you can nix that assumption right there.

Man, I wonder if they're ever going to find that place, to prove that God really is sexist, or if that position is just a tool of oppressive patriarchal systems used to deny women an active share in civil rights, property ownership, and political power based on an unfounded religious claim for 6,000 years.

Nevermind the fact that for 100,000 prior to that the matriarchal systems put in place by the neolithic peoples denied men equal property rights and political power, as well as possible religious equality.

Ridiculous. It's the 21st century. CE. Not only are some of your claims wildly outdated, but also inappropriate in the modern world.

I'm sorry I was unaware that the Divine and Revealed Truth of the universe had to conform to contemporary and always changing values of a population that can't agree on anything. God does not follow mankind, he leads us towards the right path. And to presume that the "modern world" exists independent of a deity and divine law is blatantly narrow-minded.

To claim women don't have equal "divine" equality, or ability to actively participate in religion, is something the best minds of the 4th century thought up. I'd like to hope we'd have come out of the freakin' Dark Ages by now...

Women do have equal "divine" quality. They are called to have power over the life in this world, by being mothers and taking care of their families. Whereas men have power over life in the next world by acting as Christ's representatives. The roles are not in opposition nor are they necessarily equal, but they are complementary, in that neither can exist without the other.

Besides being a Priest isn't a role that one goes into with vanity or delusions of grandeur. A priest is supposed to be the ultimate submission to God's revealed truth. A woman cannot be submissive and demand this role at the same time. Like all of us we must obey the church's laws set down by the heirs of Christ. I have no problems with women requesting that the priesthood be opened to them, but historically they have never had this role, and it would be an artificial construct inside of the most natural evolution of the mother church. Therefore if they request and do research they should discover that they should not demand this role but seek appropriate measures to fulfill God's will.

PS- Go post some of your theories about women and men's respective positions in god's eyes in the women's history forum. I'm sure some of our female members will happily give you a rousing 'wake-up call.' Hopefully some more of more enlightened male

Just so you know the role of women in the world is something that i find to be a very important subject for research, and I, as you would know had you bothered to check, am very active in the Women's History forum. And I am not afraid to voice my opinions on various topics, as I despise any attempts to advocate androgeny of the sexes or to force the superiority of any gender over the other. I'd like to think that even if the female (and some male) members don't agree with me at least they understand and respect my position on the matter. I hardly believe that being the case I need a "wake-up call" as you mentioned.

Oh and just to let you know I am NOT afraid to voice my opinion on this subject in that forum.