Defrocked for having a kid: preist with a LEGAL FEMALE

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 31, 2010 at 2:54pm

This actually makes perfect sense according to their theology. "Defrocking" is simply a woo woo term which refers to the priestly vows a priest takes, which include celibacy. So willingly declaring that you break your vow of celibacy by entering in a relationship, might lead to this priest being defrocked.
Sinning, on the other hand, is not regarded as proper grounds for defrocking a priest, because the Church believes all priests are sinners anyway. So whether they steal $5, kill somebody, or rape a child, will not result in them being relieved of their priestly vows. Declaring that you break the vow of celibacy, will.

Makes sense to you? Me neither. But it's not - from their perspective - a double standard.

I wonder what the girl's parents think about this...

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on August 31, 2010 at 2:56pm

I'm completely agree, it isn't really a double standard (although you'd think rape would be a violation of celibacy requirements...but a relationship is different from rape). I just like pointing out how completely immoral Catholic 'morality' is.

For priests:
Legal relationship = bad
rape of children = acceptable

*shudder*

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 31, 2010 at 3:03pm

Yep, it's nuts.
Still though, they're not saying child rape is acceptable. Raping a child will get your ministry removed and you won't be able to do 'priestly' things. But your vows won't be removed.

The main problem is that despite this official position, some bishops don't report these things and shuffle these guys around where possible. And in some cases (such as was the case with John Paul II) the Pope even protects some of them.

Permalink Reply by Mick Wright on August 31, 2010 at 3:41pm

And of course our lad Ratzi, Emperor Pope-atine, who was running THE GODDAMN INQUISITION and wrote letters declaring that they should be better covered up when they rape kids.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 31, 2010 at 3:51pm

Mind giving me evidence for that?

Please don't think I've been living under a rock for the last few years or something, but whenever I see people (even supposed rationalists like Hitchens and Dawkins) trot these statements out where they have "CONCLUSIVE SMOKING GUN PROOF" that Ratzinger ordered the cover-up of rape cases, it turns out - upon close analysis - to be nothing of the sort.

So can you provide some evidence? I'd be much obliged because nothing I've seen so far backs up that claim.

Permalink Reply by Mick Wright on August 31, 2010 at 5:02pm

You know, you're right? I was working on what a mate who was disgusted with the Catholic church told me, and looking at it he didn't actually order the coverup...he just said they should consider whether defrocking a child-raping priest was for the good of the Church, in a letter from 1985.

Fuck it. That's just as bad.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 31, 2010 at 5:12pm

Meh, the defrocking part is pure voodoo, and I couldn't care less whether or not the church decides to relieve someone of his voodoo vows or not. All I'm concerned with is whether or not Ratzinger (or anyone else) actively stopped or obstructed civil investigations into these matters. And as far as I can tell, Ratzinger did not.

The irony here is that this leaves the real scumbags unharmed: the bishops who - at the 'grassroots' - were doing exactly that. Incompetent goons like bishop Cummins, who allowed a pedophile priest (who was removed from ministry) to work at a youth camp.
Yet in the witch-hunt to try to pin this on Ratzinger, this guy gets a free pass.

And you've never seen irony 'till you've debated with atheists who were seriously trying to defend Cummins, just so they could blame Ratzinger.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on September 1, 2010 at 12:19pm

They aren't removing their priestly duties if they are shuffling them from parish to parish.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on September 1, 2010 at 12:40pm

Which is something we should hold the respective bishops accountable for.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on September 2, 2010 at 7:31am

And the priests of course...but that was my point. The "shuffled" priests don't get defrocked until they are caught by secular authorities. For the Catholics, it isn't about doing what's right or even following the religion, it is about not getting caught.