|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:53 pm
Semiremis Someoneiknow Disgusting, here's the link NY Times I thought in God's kingdom, a sin of that magnitude would at least kick you out of any priesthood. It's not like he can't be a common citzen and still attend mass, but not with these guys who molest innocent children. I'll have to get back to you on this but the NY Times is a well known far left source, I wouldn't call them balanced by any means. I'll look around later to see what I can dig up though, keep things fair and balanced you know, I'm sure we all want that. Anyway are we in God's kingdom? I wasn't aware that a place overrun with 'evil' and sin was God's kingdom? The Priest in question is dead so where he goes is in God's hands now. I don't know if he should have been defrocked or not, he apparently repented so if you believe in the teachings of Christ and the idea of repentance (so basically from a Christian perspective) should he have been taken out of the priesthood? I mean, King David had a man killed so that he could have the mans wife...He remained in God's good grace though he was wrung out for it. God sort of has a history in the bible of choosing people who do atrocious things, even those he chooses as leaders. Why? Call me a bad Christian if you want but I think the man should have been put somewhere where he couldn't hurt anyone EVER again once he was found out, ANYONE involved absolutely should not have a get out of jail free card but you can't just put anyone through a trial and based on what the NY Times reported on there isn't enough to throw the Pope into the hands of a judge and jury. In any case, innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty than they have no place as a free member of society, they lost that right for good in my mind. Well, I am not aware of a Catholic decision making when it comes to putting a priest or anyone up to a religious "tribunal" of sorts, but I am fully aware of the LDS church and how they handle all sins that are to be brought forth before say a Bishop. I am fully aware that a young man in my ward was asked to not partake of the sacrament for a while after a case of shoplifting was brought before him and he was found guilty. This to me, is a severe punishment, much equal to not partaking of mass, so I guess I find not "defrocking" a priest a bit too soft, and I feel that the repentance process should have been a lot more drawn out for an individual who had done such a heinous sin. Repentance is a process, not a word to just be used during prayer.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:54 pm
VK Fox caeruleus5765 @Someoneiknow - Welcome to the other side... we have cookies... Forgive me, but I have to bring up that episode of Spongebob where they all become superheroes and Mr. Krabs only lights up half of the restaurant. AR AR AR AR AR AR!!!! sorry, I loved the episode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:11 pm
Someoneiknow Semiremis Someoneiknow Disgusting, here's the link NY Times I thought in God's kingdom, a sin of that magnitude would at least kick you out of any priesthood. It's not like he can't be a common citzen and still attend mass, but not with these guys who molest innocent children. I'll have to get back to you on this but the NY Times is a well known far left source, I wouldn't call them balanced by any means. I'll look around later to see what I can dig up though, keep things fair and balanced you know, I'm sure we all want that. Anyway are we in God's kingdom? I wasn't aware that a place overrun with 'evil' and sin was God's kingdom? The Priest in question is dead so where he goes is in God's hands now. I don't know if he should have been defrocked or not, he apparently repented so if you believe in the teachings of Christ and the idea of repentance (so basically from a Christian perspective) should he have been taken out of the priesthood? I mean, King David had a man killed so that he could have the mans wife...He remained in God's good grace though he was wrung out for it. God sort of has a history in the bible of choosing people who do atrocious things, even those he chooses as leaders. Why? Call me a bad Christian if you want but I think the man should have been put somewhere where he couldn't hurt anyone EVER again once he was found out, ANYONE involved absolutely should not have a get out of jail free card but you can't just put anyone through a trial and based on what the NY Times reported on there isn't enough to throw the Pope into the hands of a judge and jury. In any case, innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty than they have no place as a free member of society, they lost that right for good in my mind. Well, I am not aware of a Catholic decision making when it comes to putting a priest or anyone up to a religious "tribunal" of sorts, but I am fully aware of the LDS church and how they handle all sins that are to be brought forth before say a Bishop. I am fully aware that a young man in my ward was asked to not partake of the sacrament for a while after a case of shoplifting was brought before him and he was found guilty. This to me, is a severe punishment, much equal to not partaking of mass, so I guess I find not "defrocking" a priest a bit too soft, and I feel that the repentance process should have been a lot more drawn out for an individual who had done such a heinous sin. Repentance is a process, not a word to just be used during prayer. You looked into the repentance process in this case? I think what you said is fair enough. I looked into this some more, apparently allegations of abuse were brought to the civil authorities in the 70's, they were dropped. The NY Times article mentions this in one or two sentences and then moves on...so I'm a bit more skeptical about their article since that's kind of an important fact. Still looking into this some more though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:28 am
Semiremis Someoneiknow Semiremis Someoneiknow Disgusting, here's the link NY Times I thought in God's kingdom, a sin of that magnitude would at least kick you out of any priesthood. It's not like he can't be a common citzen and still attend mass, but not with these guys who molest innocent children. I'll have to get back to you on this but the NY Times is a well known far left source, I wouldn't call them balanced by any means. I'll look around later to see what I can dig up though, keep things fair and balanced you know, I'm sure we all want that. Anyway are we in God's kingdom? I wasn't aware that a place overrun with 'evil' and sin was God's kingdom? The Priest in question is dead so where he goes is in God's hands now. I don't know if he should have been defrocked or not, he apparently repented so if you believe in the teachings of Christ and the idea of repentance (so basically from a Christian perspective) should he have been taken out of the priesthood? I mean, King David had a man killed so that he could have the mans wife...He remained in God's good grace though he was wrung out for it. God sort of has a history in the bible of choosing people who do atrocious things, even those he chooses as leaders. Why? Call me a bad Christian if you want but I think the man should have been put somewhere where he couldn't hurt anyone EVER again once he was found out, ANYONE involved absolutely should not have a get out of jail free card but you can't just put anyone through a trial and based on what the NY Times reported on there isn't enough to throw the Pope into the hands of a judge and jury. In any case, innocent until proven guilty. Once proven guilty than they have no place as a free member of society, they lost that right for good in my mind. Well, I am not aware of a Catholic decision making when it comes to putting a priest or anyone up to a religious "tribunal" of sorts, but I am fully aware of the LDS church and how they handle all sins that are to be brought forth before say a Bishop. I am fully aware that a young man in my ward was asked to not partake of the sacrament for a while after a case of shoplifting was brought before him and he was found guilty. This to me, is a severe punishment, much equal to not partaking of mass, so I guess I find not "defrocking" a priest a bit too soft, and I feel that the repentance process should have been a lot more drawn out for an individual who had done such a heinous sin. Repentance is a process, not a word to just be used during prayer. You looked into the repentance process in this case? I think what you said is fair enough. I looked into this some more, apparently allegations of abuse were brought to the civil authorities in the 70's, they were dropped. The NY Times article mentions this in one or two sentences and then moves on...so I'm a bit more skeptical about their article since that's kind of an important fact. Still looking into this some more though. Here is the way I look at it. The church has already condemned the individual by their statement. They stated that the individual had already repented of this individual case. Well then that means that he DID do something to a little boy. However innocent it may have felt, it was wrong, and he has hurt some child, the least of those, and so thus he has done it unto Christ. With this deduction, he should have been defrocked. He may not have gone to trial, but if he confessed to any form of these allegations, and he needed repentance, then no matter how anybody tries to justify it, he still harmed an innocent boy, sexually. Thus, he should have felt the wrath of God from the Catholic Church, we can be forgiving, but take him away from the priesthood and children!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
