Cardinal Mahony, certified asshole

[dead0man]

from his blog

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cardinal Mahony is the ass from LA that was moving pedos from parish to parish dodging the law and raping children.  From wiki

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I sometimes hope there is a hell just so filth like this can be properly punished.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

But dead0man, you know that it'd be wrong for people from certain nationalities or ethnic backgrounds to ever leave the Catholic Church despite the presence of people like this. Because "CULTURE OMG", obviously.

[Obamanation]

Stop hating on the Universal Church.

[7,052,770]

But dead0man, you know that it'd be wrong for people from certain nationalities or ethnic backgrounds to ever leave the Catholic Church despite the presence of people like this. Because "CULTURE OMG", obviously.

Absurd strawman derived from unique family experience

[DemPGH]

Well, the Vatican in the past has directed or else ordered them to keep this stuff under the rug, so to speak, so it shouldn't be too shocking. It's more alarming and disappointing than anything. I find it "a little bit asinine," to borrow an understatement from a buddy of mine, that they require celibacy of priests. While I don't think reversing it would fix everything - there are of course pedophile preachers in other faiths - it would go a long way, and moreover, a celibacy requirement is anti-human nature and anti-evolution, and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Well, the Vatican in the past has directed or else ordered them to keep this stuff under the rug, so to speak, so it shouldn't be too shocking. It's more alarming and disappointing than anything. I find it "a little bit asinine," to borrow an understatement from a buddy of mine, that they require celibacy of priests. While I don't think reversing it would fix everything - there are of course pedophile preachers in other faiths - it would go along way, and moreover, a celibacy requirement is anti-humn nature and anti-evolution, and makes no sense whatsoever.

It actually makes at least some sense theologically, and I really don't think 'anti-human nature' or 'anti-evolution' (whatever is meant by those terms) should be relevant considerations for this sort of thing, but you're right that it's shown itself not be very practical or helpful.

[DemPGH]

Well, the Vatican in the past has directed or else ordered them to keep this stuff under the rug, so to speak, so it shouldn't be too shocking. It's more alarming and disappointing than anything. I find it "a little bit asinine," to borrow an understatement from a buddy of mine, that they require celibacy of priests. While I don't think reversing it would fix everything - there are of course pedophile preachers in other faiths - it would go along way, and moreover, a celibacy requirement is anti-humn nature and anti-evolution, and makes no sense whatsoever.

It actually makes at least some sense theologically, and I really don't think 'anti-human nature' or 'anti-evolution' (whatever is meant by those terms) should be relevant considerations for this sort of thing, but you're right that it's shown itself not be very practical or helpful.

Don't have time to elaborate right at the moment, but I mean the innate human desire - however significant, however not significant, or however fluctuating - for sexual contact and relief should NOT be treated as a taboo as they outwardly treat it, and as most western religions treat it.

And I will say, this is not a Catholic problem, but I think prohibiting those guys and pounding into those guys that sex is a taboo raises anxiety and creates an atmosphere where they have to bottle up sexual desire, and they should never have to do that.

I remember a story a few years ago about a priest in Miami who had a girlfriend, was fairly open about it, and they drummed him out. I think he became Episcopalian. What a shame. "Father Oprah," I think.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Well, the Vatican in the past has directed or else ordered them to keep this stuff under the rug, so to speak, so it shouldn't be too shocking. It's more alarming and disappointing than anything. I find it "a little bit asinine," to borrow an understatement from a buddy of mine, that they require celibacy of priests. While I don't think reversing it would fix everything - there are of course pedophile preachers in other faiths - it would go along way, and moreover, a celibacy requirement is anti-humn nature and anti-evolution, and makes no sense whatsoever.

It actually makes at least some sense theologically, and I really don't think 'anti-human nature' or 'anti-evolution' (whatever is meant by those terms) should be relevant considerations for this sort of thing, but you're right that it's shown itself not be very practical or helpful.

Don't have time to elaborate right at the moment, but I mean the innate human desire - however significant, however not significant, or however fluctuating - for sexual contact and relief should NOT be treated as a taboo as they outwardly treat it, and as most western religions treat it.

And I will say, this is not a Catholic problem, but I think prohibiting those guys and pounding into those guys that sex is a taboo raises anxiety and creates an atmosphere where they have to bottle up sexual desire, and they should never have to do that.

I remember a story a few years ago about a priest in Miami who had a girlfriend, was fairly open about it, and they drummed him out. I think he became Episcopalian. What a shame. "Father Oprah," I think.

All of these are, of course, the practical (and humane, I'd go so far as to say, in some cases) problems that I was talking about. This may indeed be severe enough to outweigh the theological reasoning behind why the discipline is in place even though I DO think that that reasoning is legitimate on its own terms  (I imagine you would probably not agree) and would like to see it preserved in an ideal world (I know for a fact you would not agree).

We Episcopalians actually get quite a few of our priests from the process you're describing in the last paragraph, including (in a roundabout sort of way) the current Bishop of Western Massachusetts...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anytime some brings the phrase "human nature" into any discussion or debate, my eyes roll.

Sorry, carry on.

[DemPGH]

Anytime some brings the phrase "human nature" into any discussion or debate, my eyes roll.

Sorry, carry on.

Well, anytime someone mentions that the sky is blue I roll my eyes too. That's because around here about 50% of the time it seems very distinctly gray. Like today. Which is okay, because when it's cold and gray it's easier for me, at least, to concentrate on the things I need to concentrate on than when it's warm, sunny, and with lots of activity outside.

Seriously, the impulse for sexual contact is strong and driving in the great apes. That's what we are. We're in there with apes, gorillas, chimps, etc. Read about sexuality and chimps if you want an eye-opening read. They are our closest relatives. Of course, that impulse generally is strong in large brained mammals - it's one of the major reasons why they got to be apex predators and alpha species. Things are slightly more passive with plants, now, and we are most decidedly not in the plant Kingdom.

My point is, to expect people to bottle up their sexuality whether they belong to a particular religious order or not is to expect them to bottle up a defining characteristic of their species. And such an expectation would demonstrate an appalling display of ignorance.

[TJ in Oregon]

Mahony really should retire and recuse himself from the Conclave at this point. He's already been stripped of all official duties within the Diocese of Los Angeles by Archbishop Gomez. I doubt there's anything he could be legally charged with at this point as so many years have passed. He's gotten a beating in the press of late, yes, but he can avoid this in the future by leading a quiet life and avoiding the cameras and print if he really wanted to. Cardinal, if by some bizarre twist of luck you're reading this: buy yourself a horse and ride off into the sunset.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

But dead0man, you know that it'd be wrong for people from certain nationalities or ethnic backgrounds to ever leave the Catholic Church despite the presence of people like this. Because "CULTURE OMG", obviously.

Absurd strawman derived from unique family experience

There's more to it than that. I just posted this, and hope that it provides a little more clarity:

Now if you wonder what's colored my views on this stuff (more as a general statement, not really toward patrick), consider the context: The Catholic church waged a VICIOUS anti-gay campaign here for the past two years up until November and even prior to that did as much backing for Tom Emmer as possible without violating IRS regulations (on that issue alone.) It utterly disgusted me to no end, and the Star Tribune and some local indie publications on more than one occasion ran stories citing ex-Catholics who said they left the church because of this alone. Yes lots of Protestants did the same thing. But lots didn't, even evangelicals. One megachurch pastor attracted some controversy for refusing to support the amendment, while he stopped short of speaking against it too, he did give some statement along the lines of "I know there are plenty of people at my church on both sides of this issue and I'm not going to get involved in something this divisive."

Now I know the point is always made that many individual Catholics didn't agree with this at all and were just as disgusted. I don't dispute that. But I ask then why remain in the church. The "OMG CULTURE" stuff reminds me of Oldiesfreak's arguments about how the Republicans should be supported today because of the Civil War and segregation era. It sounds just as absurd and nonsensical to me.

Maybe there's deeper things here I don't really value and thus I can't comprehend it well. I don't dispute that. But that still explains WHY I can't understand it and find it so bizarre and inane.

[Obamanation]

But dead0man, you know that it'd be wrong for people from certain nationalities or ethnic backgrounds to ever leave the Catholic Church despite the presence of people like this. Because "CULTURE OMG", obviously.

Absurd strawman derived from unique family experience

There's more to it than that. I just posted this, and hope that it provides a little more clarity:

Now if you wonder what's colored my views on this stuff (more as a general statement, not really toward patrick), consider the context: The Catholic church waged a VICIOUS anti-gay campaign here for the past two years up until November and even prior to that did as much backing for Tom Emmer as possible without violating IRS regulations (on that issue alone.) It utterly disgusted me to no end, and the Star Tribune and some local indie publications on more than one occasion ran stories citing ex-Catholics who said they left the church because of this alone. Yes lots of Protestants did the same thing. But lots didn't, even evangelicals. One megachurch pastor attracted some controversy for refusing to support the amendment, while he stopped short of speaking against it too, he did give some statement along the lines of "I know there are plenty of people at my church on both sides of this issue and I'm not going to get involved in something this divisive."

Now I know the point is always made that many individual Catholics didn't agree with this at all and were just as disgusted. I don't dispute that. But I ask then why remain in the church. The "OMG CULTURE" stuff reminds me of Oldiesfreak's arguments about how the Republicans should be supported today because of the Civil War and segregation era. It sounds just as absurd and nonsensical to me.

Maybe there's deeper things here I don't really value and thus I can't comprehend it well. I don't dispute that. But that still explains WHY I can't understand it and find it so bizarre and inane.

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

[Obamanation]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

[Lincoln Republican]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

Perhaps in the minds of the 24% of Catholics who say they attend mass once a week or more.

Clearly, as in most faiths, by far most Catholics are Catholic in name only, not practice.

The only way the Catholic Church is the Universal Church is that one meaning of Catholic is universal.

And any Catholic clergy who abuses children should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law, and any Catholic official who covers this up should likewise face the maximum punishment for their deplorable behavior.

Any Catholic Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal who simply moves the offending clergy from one parish to another after the clergy has abused children, is as guilty as the offending clergy.  The clergy and the Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal should be defrocked to begin with, and then prosecuted in a court of law, and face the consequences.

The Catholic Church, and all other churches so guilty, should stop the cover up and start the clean up.   

Anyone of any faith, or anyone period who abuses children should face the consequences of their actions in a court of law.

I sincerely hope there will be no cover up Cardinals in the conclave.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

The modern days Sadducees of Rome may call themselves the Universal Church, but they are not.  The Universal Church consists of all the followers of the Christ, regardless of whether they follow the Pope or not.

[Obamanation]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

The modern days Sadducees of Rome may call themselves the Universal Church, but they are not.  The Universal Church consists of all the followers of the Christ, regardless of whether they follow the Pope or not.

That's an opinion....

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

The modern days Sadducees of Rome may call themselves the Universal Church, but they are not.  The Universal Church consists of all the followers of the Christ, regardless of whether they follow the Pope or not.

That's an opinion....

As is the idea that the Catholic Church is the "Universal Church". But considering that Jesus was a cool anti-authority/anti-hierarchy guy, it's tough to find much common ground between him and the Pope and thus the idea that following Jesus must also entail following the Pope. Jesus was also outspoken in being anti-religion.

[Obamanation]

Again, stop hating on the Universal Church.

He's hating on the Roman Church headed by the Pope, not the Universal Church headed by the Christ.  Still, hate's not a good thing, no matter its target.

The Catholic Church is the Universal Church...

The modern days Sadducees of Rome may call themselves the Universal Church, but they are not.  The Universal Church consists of all the followers of the Christ, regardless of whether they follow the Pope or not.

That's an opinion....

As is the idea that the Catholic Church is the "Universal Church". But considering that Jesus was a cool anti-authority/anti-hierarchy guy, it's tough to find much common ground between him and the Pope and thus the idea that following Jesus must also entail following the Pope. Jesus was also outspoken in being anti-religion.

...

Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if one accepts uncritically the text of the official canon and ignores texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or even the canonical Galatians 2 that indicate that t was James and not Peter that was the head of the early church after the crucifixion, then you'd have to deal with the fact that quite a number of traditions including the Eastern Orthodox interpret Matt.16:18-19 as indicating that it was the faith and insight that Peter had shown in Matt.16:16 that was the foundation Jesus would be building upon, not a single man. Last but not least, not since the first century has the Bishop of Rome been Peter, so even if one accepts that Jesus intended that Peter lead the church after his crucifixion, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the authority was intended to be transferred to the office of the Bishop of Rome or any other office for that matter.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, the Catholic Church makes a giant leap into assuming that Peter is being asked to lead a specific church and become some office such as "Pope" that will continue after him and that "the church" being described is not the collection of all believers.

But if you buy into that, how does that work with the Catholic Church's horrendous positions on women, birth control and homosexuals?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

But if you buy into that, how does that work with the Catholic Church's horrendous positions on women, birth control and homosexuals?

...huh? Why wouldn't it work with that? These seem like at least in theory unrelated problems to me.

Anyway, getting back for a moment the original subject, Cardinal Mahony is scum, an embarrassment to Catholicism and Christianity, should by rights not attend the conclave, et cetra.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Well it means somehow accepting that the infallible "true church" holds such awful and immoral positions.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Well it means somehow accepting that the infallible "true church" holds such awful and immoral positions.

That's a problem with (the way you and most Protestants of my acquaintance interpret) papal infallibility, not apostolic succession or even papal primacy as such. Call it a crisis of peak ultramontanism if you will. (Which is, in fact, a legitimate problem and a large part of the reason why I'm not Catholic, but which I don't like to see unduly conflated with the various other problems.)