Ordaining female priests is as bad as child abuse, says Vatican

Link here. Or, for those less inclined to read the Guardian, the New York Times

Quote :

It was meant to be the document that put a lid on the clerical sex abuse scandals that have swept the Roman Catholic world. But instead of quelling fury from within and without the church, the Vatican stoked the anger of liberal Catholics and women's groups by including a provision in its revised decree that made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes in ecclesiastical law.

The change put the "offence" on a par with the sex abuse of minors.

Quote :

The revision of a decree first issued nine years ago was intended to address the issue of clerical sex abuse. Last night it remained unclear why the Vatican had decided to invite further controversy by changing the status of women's ordination in canon law.

Because God definitely hates women as much as abusing children.

Great work, Catholic Church. People won't notice you still don't give a shit about systematic child abuse as they're too busy noticing you're also a bunch of misogynists.

On the good side, maybe they'll start covering up ordained female priests now?

ETA: Daily Mash is brilliant

Of course God hates women. He's all for their rape, abduction, murder, sacrifice, turning to salt, stoning, mutilation and more rape.

But God LIKES child abuse, if you've ever paid the slightest attention to how he ordered Abraham to kill his son just to test him, and rejected Cain's sacrifice because it was of wheat and so on rather than the burning of animals, despite claiming omniscient and therefore surely knowing this rejection would cause murder.

So it's TRUE! WOMEN PRIESTS ARE EVIL IN GOD'S EYES!

You're still expecting these guys to make sense, Zo? You poor thing.

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

Oh religion. When will you ever join the 21st century?

Somath Cegem wrote:

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

I don't. He holds a lot of the responsibilty for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I'm still not sure if that's worse or not.

Wait, you just now noticed that the church is misogynistic?

1 Timothy 2:11-12

ZoZo wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

I don't. He holds a lot of the responsibilty for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I'm still not sure if that's worse or not.

I'm not entirely sure what your referring to.
If you mean his speaking out against birth control I can how that might have had an impact, though I think the intention was more of a "If your gonna have sex let it be for making a baby like god intended" not "SPREAD AID'S SPREAD CONSUME THE WORLD!!!!"
This is kinda why I miss John Paul II, he may have got it wrong sometimes but there was no malice, this shit on the other hand, this is just kick you in the shins and run away petty.

No apostrophe in AIDS, fella. It's an acronym.

Somath Cegem wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

I don't. He holds a lot of the responsibilty for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I'm still not sure if that's worse or not.

I'm not entirely sure what your referring to.
If you mean his speaking out against birth control I can how that might have had an impact, though I think the intention was more of a "If your gonna have sex let it be for making a baby like god intended" not "SPREAD AID'S SPREAD CONSUME THE WORLD!!!!"
This is kinda why I miss John Paul II, he may have got it wrong sometimes but there was no malice, this shit on the other hand, this is just kick you in the shins and run away petty.

There was plenty of malice. The Vatican II thing that everyone credits him? That was Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul I had a huge role in it. Pope John Paul II began undoing that. Not to mention his involvement with Opus Dei and the really skeevy practice of using aide programs in less developed countries to convert people to Catholicism. He raised a huge fuss about Terry Schiavo, even though it wasn't any of his business but when it was his time to go, he requested that doctors uphold a DNR and they did without a fuss. He was not a modern or even a forward thinking man and (one of my favorite bits) during the World Pray for Peace Day nearly thirty years ago when he only prayed with Christians. There was also a "rule book" the Vatican released about how "proper" women are supposed to behave, but I can't remember if the pope had anything to do with that.

There are plenty of people that do amazing works (regardless of their political affiliation) and deserve to be recognized, but beatifying an authoritarian dude afraid to enter the twenty-first century isn't the way to go about doing it.

Jesus. wrote:

You're still expecting these guys to make sense, Zo? You poor thing.

I blame you, really.

ZoZo wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

I don't. He holds a lot of the responsibilty for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I'm still not sure if that's worse or not.

>Misspell responsibility.
>Try to act intellectually superior.
>mfw

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I suppose it was his fault everyone on the African continent would not stop having sex with everyone and everything that walked?

Somath Cegem wrote:

If you mean his speaking out against birth control I can how that might have had an impact, though I think the intention was more of a "If your gonna have sex let it be for making a baby like god intended" not "SPREAD AID'S SPREAD CONSUME THE WORLD!!!!"

When half a continent is getting ready to die of AIDS, which is a sexually transmitted disease, it doesn't matter a whit what your intent is when you use your influence to persuade people not to use a barrier method of contraception.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

If you mean his speaking out against birth control I can how that might have had an impact, though I think the intention was more of a "If your gonna have sex let it be for making a baby like god intended" not "SPREAD AID'S SPREAD CONSUME THE WORLD!!!!"

When half a continent is getting ready to die of AIDS, which is a sexually transmitted disease, it doesn't matter a whit what your intent is when you use your influence to persuade people not to use a barrier method of contraception.

Thank you, CW. I was just about to say exactly this.

So, to conclude from this thread: the Vatican is terrible.

Psy-4 wrote:

Wait, you just now noticed that the church is misogynistic?

1 Timothy 2:11-12

You say that like we can't be outraged and appalled just because this behaviour isn't new.


Hmm.

Adagio wrote:

You say that like we can't be outraged and appalled just because this behaviour isn't new.

Considering Christianity was around for 1700 years (spoilers: Jesus dies), that's exactly what I'm saying.

For comparison, outrage at GOP expires on Dec. 21 2012.

You know, there are a fair number of church that allow women to be preachers (and not just ones that made the decision recently). The Assemblies of God has allowed women to preach since the church first incorporated. Hell, the Foursquare Church was founded by a woman, and has had women preachers and allowed women to be deacons since the late 19th century.

Not all religions refuse to believe that women can feel moved to preach the gospel the same as men, or that, if they feel the calling, they should be denied the right to follow it.

On the other hand, Uncle Joe wants women to get out of kitchen slavery.

atheism 1,213,812 : christianity 0

Darth Benedict XVI knows very well what he's doing. He wants to reinforce the Catholic Church's traditional positions, no matter how outdated, unkind or just plain headdesky they may be.

Wait wait wait, the Roman Catholic Church not ordaining women is news?

I need to get some distance so I'm not spattered with gray matter when y'all's minds are blown by the horseless carriage.

gaijinguy wrote:

Wait wait wait, the Roman Catholic Church not ordaining women is news?

I need to get some distance so I'm not spattered with gray matter when y'all's minds are blown by the horseless carriage.

It's not that any of us are surprised; it's more that everyone's been expecting SOME sort of a change in attitude by the church towards the whole child molestation scandal. It's nice that he's decided it's not okay to physically or sexually abuse children or the mentally challenged, but then he goes and throws the thing about women not becoming priests there on the end, thereby ensuring that, for the faithful, the idea of women being ordained will hereafter be connected to the idea of priests (all of whom are male, BTW) molesting innocent children.

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

You say that like we can't be outraged and appalled just because this behaviour isn't new.

Considering Christianity was around for 1700 years (spoilers: Jesus dies), that's exactly what I'm saying.

By that selfsame logic, nobody should have any right to be appalled at racism, because it's been around for so long, or to be dismayed when an earthquake strikes, because of course those have been around forever, right? By your logic, the entire Godawful News subforum is rendered irrelevant because, gee guys, you're only just now discovering humanity can be cruel?

I can't help but suspect you perhaps didn't think of the implications of that statement.

I think I get that what you're trying to say is something along the lines of "you're really surprised at this, after all this time?"—but you're missing the point. It's not that we're surprised. It's that we're enraged that the Catholic Church has taken a decree that everybody thought would be a long-overdue step forward... and used it to further their petty agenda against the Anglican Church. (The Anglican Church being the one that recently ruled it's A-OK to ordain female bishops, unless I'm gravely mistaken.) It's—really—it's a betrayal of everyone who put their confidence/faith/whatever in the Catholic Church's ability to handle the whole sex abuse matter with compassion, and it proves that it has progressed not a whit since pretty much the day the religion was created.

Somath Cegem wrote:

*sigh* I miss John Paul II.

It was JPII who stated that girls couldn't be altar boys - pardon the grammatical clash. For some reasons, I could serve during funeral services or ceremonies held outside the church, like Memorial Day, but not the Sunday Mass.

gaijinguy wrote:

Wait wait wait, the Roman Catholic Church not ordaining women is news?

I need to get some distance so I'm not spattered with gray matter when y'all's minds are blown by the horseless carriage.

The news bit is that they've come out and said it's as bad as child abuse. Let me repeat that. Giving women the same opportunity as men is the same as raping children. They just said that.

ZoZo wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Wait wait wait, the Roman Catholic Church not ordaining women is news?

I need to get some distance so I'm not spattered with gray matter when y'all's minds are blown by the horseless carriage.

The news bit is that they've come out and said it's as bad as child abuse. Let me repeat that. Giving women the same opportunity as men is the same as raping children. They just said that.

Yeah, I was just about to say this.

Quote :

Giving women the same opportunity as men is the same as raping children.

Just quoting this again for the idiots who are herping their derp yet again over another thread being made that discusses religion/feminism.

EDIT: Oh great, my parroting starts the new page. Fantastic.