- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 409
- Location
- Humble Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, called the document "one of the most insulting and misogynistic pronouncements that the Vatican has made for a very long time. Why any self-respecting woman would want to remain part of an organisation that regards their full and equal participation as a 'grave sin' is a mystery to me."
While I am not defending the church here, except to say they really can do things like this if they want as long as it is kept within the church(kinda like Sharia law), but this leaped out at me:
Any one else see a problem here?
Terry is an ambiguous name? :lol:
Secular people can express an opinion about religious policy.
They can, yes. Is it generally a waste of time? Yes also. Catholic women choose to live by Catholic law. If they want to put up with bull**** like that, a noncatholic is probably not going to change their mind.
It's a Catholic matter, strictly internal to that church and having no effect outside of those who are voluntarily part of it, and I'm not Catholic.... so I don't much care.
Yes, it may be a waste of time, but it may prevent some women from converting.
You are also a male.
People are converting to catholicism?
The Catholics are in the news again as the make it a sin woman who is ordinate. The woman who have been ordinate will be excommunicated, and not allowed back because the Vatican has made it a grave crime on Par with child abuse. :roll:
Catholic News Service said:Pope John Paul's 2001 document distinguished between two types of "most grave crimes," those committed in the celebration of the sacraments and those committed against morals. Among the sacramental crimes were such things as desecration of the Eucharist and violation of the seal of confession.
Under the new revisions, the "attempted ordination of women" will be listed among those crimes, as a serious violation of the sacrament of holy orders, informed sources said. As such, it will be handled under the procedures set up for investigating "delicta graviora" under the control of the doctrinal congregation.
Catholic New Service
People are converting to catholicism?
While I am not defending the church here, except to say they really can do things like this if they want as long as it is kept within the church(kinda like Sharia law), but this leaped out at me:
Any one else see a problem here?
Actually, yes, quite a lot actually...
Data from countries in which church membership is officially registered suggest tens of thousands of Catholics, perhaps hundreds of thousands, have abandoned their faith in disgust.
I would imagine so. If you love someone who is Catholic you have to convert before you get married. This could actually get males to leave the church so they can marry their non-Catholic females.
I would imagine so. If you love someone who is Catholic you have to convert before you get married. This could actually get males to leave the church so they can marry their non-Catholic females.
Since scandals blew up in Germany in January, five Roman Catholic bishops have resigned as evidence has come to light of priests who raped or molested children, and of superiors who turned a blind eye to safeguard the reputation of the church. Data from countries in which church membership is officially registered suggest tens of thousands of Catholics, perhaps hundreds of thousands, have abandoned their faith in disgust.
Father Federico Lombardi, the pope's spokesman, stressed that the new rules on sex abuse applied solely to procedures for defrocking priests under canon law. They had no bearing on whether suspected offenders were notified to the civil authorities – he said bishops had already been reminded of their duty to do so.
The most important change is to extend the period during which a clergyman can be tried by a church court from 10 to 20 years, dating from the 18th birthday of his victim. Many people who were abused by priests are unable to summon up the courage to come forward until well into adulthood.
...
The new norms also streamline the procedures for dealing with the most urgent and serious cases, enabling bishops to defrock priests without a long, costly trial. They put abuse of the mentally disabled on a level with that of minors. And they introduce a new crime of paedophile pornography, defined as "the acquisition, possession or disclosure" by a clergyman of pornographic images of children below the age of 14.
Actually, yes, quite a lot actually...
That's not accurate, actually. A Catholic of either sex can marry a non-Catholic in a valid marriage, however it is considered "non-sacramental." It is still valid in almost every way, and it is for most practical purposes just a minor canon law distinction. A Catholic doesn't have to leave the Church to marry a non-Catholic.
Guy, I did read alright and they will not be let back because they don't consider it a sin. I just think this is not a misconfiguration of the text, since it will be considered a grave sin.
And what does "non-sacramental" mean?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?