Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 8:31pm.
2:29: You may justifiably object to the comments I made concerning the Roman Catholic Church's Canon 1037, which requires the obligation of celibacy for priests. Clearly, as an outsider, the internal policies of the church are really not my business; in fact, in contrast to the Church's policies concerning abortion, which they attempt to impose on society at large, this Canon has little impact outside of the Church and its membership.
However, I must note that, my comments about the Church in this post do not concern any issue beyond this Canonical law. I said "Like balls on the Pope, such support is merely ornamental, and serves no practical purpose" and then said "But, the problem is not that the WFP is useless. The problem is that, as in the Catholic Church, what appears merely to be ornamental can often be a vehicle for great harm." The reference related entirely to certain clergy and the fact that their unused equiptment, while appearing to be ornamental, was actually, in practice, used for purposes which were sometimes harmful. This cannot be denied, and I believe such misuse stems directly from the imperfect effort to render ornamental something not amenable to such usage. That is my sole criticism of the Church in this post. I did not mean to imply that the Church itself causes great harm ,and I do not believe this to be the case. Having long been involved in public life in the City of New York, I look upon the Church mostly as an important insitution for good works.
In my recall, in the 80 odd pieces I've posted on "Room 8", only one other mentions the Church. It concerns abortion. Although I unquestionably qualify as pro-choice, opposing as I do any legal restictions on abortion that I've ever encountered, I am not pro-abortion, and I wrote a piece commending efforts at ensuring that abortion was "Safe, Legal and Rare". In my piece, bearing the same title, I condemned the Church, but only for not making "Life" its real priority. Specifically, I cited the case of a young Catholic School teacher who was fired for getting pregnant and chosing to carry her child to term. I suggested that if the church were more interested in advancing "Life" than "Sexual Puritanism", it would have held a public ceremony, given the young woman a medal, and sent her on a speaking tour. Since sex outisde of marriage is only a venal sin, but abortion a mortal one, the Chruch, by its actions towards this courageous young lady, sent exactly the wrong message about its real priorities (I also note my salute to Senator John Marchi, where I commend his consistent and lonely position as the State Senate's only genuine Right-to-Lifer, opposed to abortion AND the death penalty).
So it is with the scandal concerning priests and young children. Celibacy is merely an ecclesiastic law. such laws of of human origin and can be altered or eliminated by human initiative in view of the changing pastoral circumstances. While it once served the purpose of eliminating efforts to pass Church property onto to the children of the clergy, it has now lead to conspiracies and coverups. All in the name of a puritanism no one actually wants to take steps to enforce. When confronted with the problem, the effort was made to hide it, rather than to figure out its root causes.
It is also no longer practical policy if the Church is to continue. In the olden days, the Priesthood attracted poor boys who could not get an education any other way. This may still be true in the thrid world, but it no loger works any place else. The priesthood also attracted those who saw celibacy as the only acceptable alternative to heterosexuality. With the gradual accpetance of homosexuality in societies in the Western world, this source of recruitment is also gradually dying out. Is this the source of Church opposition to measures aimed at facilitating sexual orientation non-discrimination? Surely, the Church's position condemning homosexual acts does not logically lead to opposition to preventing discrimination against homosexual persons. The late great Bishop Muguvero (one of my heroes) understood this, but such views have now gone out of fashion. Why is that? (Incidentally, I do not apply this logic to the Church's stance on gay marriage).
I do not hate the Catholic Church, and I've certainly directed far more fury at Jewish fundamentalists than at the Church and its policies. I will cop to bad taste, and butting my nose where it does not belong, but I am not your enemy.
2:29: You may justifiably object to the comments I made concerning the Roman Catholic Church's Canon 1037, which requires the obligation of celibacy for priests. Clearly, as an outsider, the internal policies of the church are really not my business; in fact, in contrast to the Church's policies concerning abortion, which they attempt to impose on society at large, this Canon has little impact outside of the Church and its membership.
However, I must note that, my comments about the Church in this post do not concern any issue beyond this Canonical law. I said "Like balls on the Pope, such support is merely ornamental, and serves no practical purpose" and then said "But, the problem is not that the WFP is useless. The problem is that, as in the Catholic Church, what appears merely to be ornamental can often be a vehicle for great harm." The reference related entirely to certain clergy and the fact that their unused equiptment, while appearing to be ornamental, was actually, in practice, used for purposes which were sometimes harmful. This cannot be denied, and I believe such misuse stems directly from the imperfect effort to render ornamental something not amenable to such usage. That is my sole criticism of the Church in this post. I did not mean to imply that the Church itself causes great harm ,and I do not believe this to be the case. Having long been involved in public life in the City of New York, I look upon the Church mostly as an important insitution for good works.
In my recall, in the 80 odd pieces I've posted on "Room 8", only one other mentions the Church. It concerns abortion. Although I unquestionably qualify as pro-choice, opposing as I do any legal restictions on abortion that I've ever encountered, I am not pro-abortion, and I wrote a piece commending efforts at ensuring that abortion was "Safe, Legal and Rare". In my piece, bearing the same title, I condemned the Church, but only for not making "Life" its real priority. Specifically, I cited the case of a young Catholic School teacher who was fired for getting pregnant and chosing to carry her child to term. I suggested that if the church were more interested in advancing "Life" than "Sexual Puritanism", it would have held a public ceremony, given the young woman a medal, and sent her on a speaking tour. Since sex outisde of marriage is only a venal sin, but abortion a mortal one, the Chruch, by its actions towards this courageous young lady, sent exactly the wrong message about its real priorities (I also note my salute to Senator John Marchi, where I commend his consistent and lonely position as the State Senate's only genuine Right-to-Lifer, opposed to abortion AND the death penalty).
So it is with the scandal concerning priests and young children. Celibacy is merely an ecclesiastic law. such laws of of human origin and can be altered or eliminated by human initiative in view of the changing pastoral circumstances. While it once served the purpose of eliminating efforts to pass Church property onto to the children of the clergy, it has now lead to conspiracies and coverups. All in the name of a puritanism no one actually wants to take steps to enforce. When confronted with the problem, the effort was made to hide it, rather than to figure out its root causes.
It is also no longer practical policy if the Church is to continue. In the olden days, the Priesthood attracted poor boys who could not get an education any other way. This may still be true in the thrid world, but it no loger works any place else. The priesthood also attracted those who saw celibacy as the only acceptable alternative to heterosexuality. With the gradual accpetance of homosexuality in societies in the Western world, this source of recruitment is also gradually dying out. Is this the source of Church opposition to measures aimed at facilitating sexual orientation non-discrimination? Surely, the Church's position condemning homosexual acts does not logically lead to opposition to preventing discrimination against homosexual persons. The late great Bishop Muguvero (one of my heroes) understood this, but such views have now gone out of fashion. Why is that? (Incidentally, I do not apply this logic to the Church's stance on gay marriage).
I do not hate the Catholic Church, and I've certainly directed far more fury at Jewish fundamentalists than at the Church and its policies. I will cop to bad taste, and butting my nose where it does not belong, but I am not your enemy.