<p>I wish everyone who disagreed with the Catholic church on any issue would leave the church, taking their donations with them. That might be what it would take to see some real penance on the part of the leaders - including the Pope. Financial concerns are what motivated the cover ups so maybe greater financial concerns would shed some light on the corruption of power.</p>
<p>Some Catholics feel honor bound to defend any policy that the Vatican holds, just as some Jews feel honor bound to defend any policy of the Israeli government. (The state of Israel does have an Official State Religion you know.) </p>
<p>Both are intransigent masters.</p>
<p>Again, folks need to realize that not all scouts, scoutmasters or scout councils (local organizational units) agree with the current stance on homosexuality. And, folks need to realize that this is the current stance. It’s a relatively new development in scouting which has more to do with the strong influence on upper level management that the Utah conservatives have than any real basic Scout values.
The Boston Council (aka Minuteman) has officially accepted gay scouts and leaders since 2001.</p>
<p>POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION</p>
<p>The mission of the Boston Minuteman Council, Boy Scouts of America is to provide character development, citizenship training, growth in physical and mental fitness, and leadership opportunities for the young people of the Boston metropolitan area. We pride ourselves on the diversity of our members, and we are committed to providing young people with an educational and stimulating environment in which to learn and grow. Through the Scout Oath and Law, we pledge to respect all people and to defend the rights of others. Bias, intolerance, and unlawful discrimination are unacceptable within the ranks of the Boston Minuteman Council.</p>
<p>The Boston Minuteman Council serves over 18,000 youth through 3 ,300 volunteers in over 330 Packs, Troops, and other units without regard to color, race, religion, ethic [sic] background, sexual orientation, or economic status.</p>
<p>Adopted July 19, 2001</p>
<p>/sig/
Brock L. Bigsby
Scout Executive and Secretary</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine. Let her know. That doesn’t change anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re not “bad,” they’re just not orthodox. That’s why I used quotation marks.</p>
<p>But I’m not arguing on anything other than factual basis here – </p>
<p>“2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”</p>
<p>“891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”</p>
<p>“2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.”</p>
<p>“889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.””</p>
<p>“890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:”</p>
<p>In other words, to say you’re Catholic is not specific enough – if one extends the definition of Catholic beyond orthodox, it becomes a meaningless indicator in the sociological sense (although all validly baptized are still members of the Body of Christ).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Corruption of power? Please. The Pope has spoken more vehemently than most non-Catholic critics about the sex-abuse scandal, referring to it as filth, sin (BIG DEAL), etc. There’s penance. But the Church is not going to crucify its own for the sake of a media circus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed – this is the point I tried to make a while ago in this thread.</p>
<p>Yes, protection of wealth and power. That has been paramount to the Catholic church, to the detriment of its parishioners and, most importantly, children. So the Pope apologized? Big deal. Where is the accountability? Why haven’t heads rolled - including his own? He should resign.</p>
<p>Some ardent Catholics will support anything the Vatican says, just as some ardent Jews will support anything that Israel (Yes, they have an Official Government Religion.) says. (And we’ve just seen how that goes.) </p>
<p>Lesson: Zealots of any ilk always promote evil</p>
<p>“Wait - Balcony Boy - you just said in the prior post that people should assume they have the same values. Now you seem to be saying something else.”</p>
<p>There is no contradiction cartera45.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a flagrant display of ignorance. The Vatican is not some political organization to be scapegoated on a whim, however serious the underlying cause is (and the sex abuse is incredibly serious).</p>
<p>The basis for a resignation of a Pope is NOT going to be administrative shortcomings, or even grave sin, because those are not valid bases for defrocking priests or for resigning from posts such as the Papacy. He CANNOT resign on this basis. It is impossible. It is nonsensical.</p>
<p>You cannot apply secular political ideas to a religious hierarchy; it doesn’t work.</p>
<p>This is the same reason that calling for the excommunication of abusive priests is idiotic to the extreme. There are only eight or so cases where excommunication lata sententia occurs, and paedophilia is not one of them. In other words, it’s not a matter of choosing not to excommunicate the priests, it’s a matter of not being able to.</p>
<p>
If paedophilia is not a reason for excommunication, then I can’t imagine what would be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because excommunication is NOT dependent on what you consider a “reason” for excommunication. It’s not serious enough theologically to warrant excommunication.</p>
<p>In other words, saying that priests who abused parishioners should be excommunicated is like saying that the U.S. should violate due process just like that for such-and-such crime. It can’t happen because it is impossible at an institutional level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about applying the law. The priests should be prosecuted and jailed, just like anyone else would be. The church should cooperate in those prosecutions rather than facilitate further abuse. Those responsible for the cover up should lose their power within the church. Interesting that a person that procures an abortion is excommunicated but a person who ruins a young life after birth is protected. Violence against the pope is included, but not violence against a child. Consecrating a woman bishop is included but not the sexual abuse of a child. I can’t think of a more evil betrayal than that of a priest taking advantage of his most vulnerable in his care. If that is not theologically serious enough to warrant excommunication, in light of the list of things that are on that list, then there are some seriously screwed up priorities.</p>
<p>nemom, thanks for that information. It is good to know that substantial groups within the organization are taking a firm public position for non-discrimination.</p>
<p>Then I guess I would have trouble belonging to a church that would excommunicate for using birth control, but not for paedophilia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Birth control is not a basis for excommunication, and abortion is not considered birth control (in the same way a condom is). And suit yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine. Then punish them according to secular law. My statement was in direct reference to your laughable call for his resignation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Church should do what is right. I agree, those who broke laws should be punished accordingly. I don’t, however, think that sucking every penny dry from an organization is a suitable reaction. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what way? There have already been related instances; priests who are found guilty of sex abuse have in some cases been defrocked and in other cases are sent to places where they can be penitent until their deaths/retirements. But any Vatican “cover up” is so vague and unsupported right now that a witch hunt would be both irrational and a fertile ground for open hatred to guide the emotions of the people. Again, no one would call for the PoTUS’s resignation if an official in Arkansas abused children, unless the cover up is absolutely concrete and undeniable. It is not. And even then, the Pope would not and should not resign.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Protected? What are you talking about? They are not “protected,” or at least are not supposed to be at an institutional level. They are simply not excommunicated. You don’t understand what you’re discussing, so don’t try to. </p>
<p>Plus, let me rephrase your statement to fit the Catholic theology, which is really the only one relevant when trying to understand…Catholic theology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a betrayal, but not necessarily a theological one. Again, the situations are simply not comparable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny how you haven’t explained the theological significance. All you’ve said is that you perceive it to be serious. No one would disagree.</p>
<p>Again, Catholicism is way more complicated than you understand, as evidenced by your posts. Operate within the correct framework or don’t bother at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently you are the one who doesn’t understand what he is discussing. Spend five minutes looking into the history of how some of the church hierarchy reacted when priests were reliably accused of molesting children or youths.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense. Do you think if a Catholic said “I think they shouldn’t say the Mass in Latin”, that they would be incorrect if they said this before Vatican II occurred (because it disagreed with the Church’s teaching) but correct if they said so after Vatican II? Talk about your moral relativism.</p>
<p>If there is a conflict between your conscience (an informed conscience, meaning you’ve seriously thought/prayed about the issue) and the Church teaching, you should follow your conscience. Not following your conscience is in fact considered a sin.</p>
<p>The Church is a teacher, not a dictator. Sometimes teachers are wrong. To assume that the Church is right about everything is lazy and harmful. It is a human construct and, like all human constructs, flawed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Church hierarchy is already too large a category to be useful. The episcopate can cover it up, the cardinalate can cover it up, the Papacy can cover it up, the Magisterium can cover it up, etc.</p>
<p>In other words, who exactly covered it up? I’m aware that some priests were shielded from legal punishment, as is everyone who has watched the news. My point was as follows:</p>
<p>1) This is not codified doctrine
2) This can have occurred at many levels of the Church hierarchy in many ways</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A Catholic can say it in either situation – one could even say that he finds a particular Mass more pleasing to God. But he would have to recognize the validity of accepted forms of Mass. And this is actually irrelevant because the CCC does not even address specific forms of the Mass. In other words, this isn’t an issue of faith and morals and is therefore not subject to Magisterial infallibility – recognizing that Masses are valid, however, is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your conscience will ALWAYS be aligned with Church teaching by definition. Church teaching describes reality in issues of faith and morals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. The Church is guided by Christ as His Bride. It is a teacher that is definitive in issues of faith and morals.</p>
<p>Whatever you are arguing, it’s not Catholicism – feel free to respond to my quotations with quotations from the Catechism, that way I know you have a basis for your argument.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, local units of the Boy Scouts ignore and disagree with the teachings of the hierarchy even more than Catholics do. In both cases, though, there are some rules that you can’t entirely get around even if you disagree with them (for example, a local unit can’t make a woman a priest or a girl an Eagle Scout)–and if you can’t live with those limitations, it makes sense to avoid the organization.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you be serious?</p>
<p>
Does this mean that Church teaching never changes with respect to issues of faith and morals, or that the conscience automatically shifts to reflect the new teaching?</p>