From bad to worse: Belgians, desecration, sacrilege and the Catholic church

[meow2u3]

During the course of their recent raids on the Belgian church, Belgian police have reportedly interferred with the graves and mortal remains of two Belgian Catholic leaders. In particular Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens stands high in the esteem of Belgian Catholics, and in his time - as a leading voice during the Second Vatican Council - he was also revered on the international scene.
This extraordinary situation reveals the gravity of matters. Police- many of whom are likely to be Catholics- raided bishops and confidential church records. They opened the graves of church leaders. For Catholics already stunned by the mire of clerical sexual abuse, this intrusion may well amount to desecration of the Cardinal's grave in St. Rumbold's Cathedral in Mechelen.
(snip)

For believing Catholics, clerical sexual abuse is a moral evil worse than, but not unrelated to desecration. It is sacrilege - worse than desecration. Priests and monastics who violate celibacy are regarded by Catholics as committing one of the most serious of spiritual offences.The abuse of minors is criminal, sinful and - in the particular case of a priest or monastic - personally sacreligious. Sacrilege to the Catholic is right up there with murder in terms of moral evil. It cuts at the heart of the sacred. The abuse of minors to Catholics is right up there with murder as a moral offence. Tragically and all too often, the facts show that although this may be Catholic teaching, Catholic bishops have repeatedly treated the matter as relatively trivial.

Sacrilege trumps desecration in Catholic teaching (if not in practice) - and the likely desecration of graves in a sacred place has sprung partly from the greater evil of clerical sexual abuse - but also from the use of power by the secular State. In pursuing crimes against minors, the Belgian state has decided that the beliefs and values of Catholics - clergy and people- are to be abrogated. From a Catholic point of view, sacrilege and state power have begotten the lesser but still serious moral evil of desecration. But in our post medieval world, the State trumps the Church. Things have changed since the Reformation.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/localradio/2010/06/from-bad-to-worse-belgians-desecration-sacrilege-and-the-catholic-church.html
*************
This is the point Catholics need to drive home regarding the behavior of the bishops, cardinals, and even the Pope enabling and covering up the sexual abuse of kids by predators masquerading as priests. Catholic critics are exposing and rightly criticizing the rampant sacrilege going on behind the closed doors of the sanctuary.

[rug]

1. Wow.

"It is sacrilege - worse than desecration. Priests and monastics who violate celibacy are regarded by Catholics as committing one of the most serious of spiritual offences. The abuse of minors is criminal, sinful and - in the particular case of a priest or monastic - personally sacreligious. Sacrilege to the Catholic is right up there with murder in terms of moral evil. It cuts at the heart of the sacred."

Powerful language.

"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2

[laconicsax]

2. Do you agree with those sentiments?

[rug]

4. Absolutely, particularly as articulated here.

He has gone right to the heart of the matter without using it as a convenient political football, which is usually how it's presented here.

Oh, and he didn't need a cartoon.

Has he followed up on this in the two years since he wrote it?

[trotsky]

5. Cartoons have been an important form of communication for a very long time.

They put a complicated issue into simple, visual terms that skewer the guilty parties and rally public opinion.

That's a good thing, right?

BTW, what has your church done in the two years since this was written? What have you personally done to help change your church in the same timeframe?

[rug]

8. If you think cartoons about child rape are a good thing.

BTW, you've spoken of your combat on the internet against religious bigotry and abuse. What have you done away from a keyboard?

[trotsky]

9. Not my church.

Nothing I do will influence those horrible old men.

You, however, support them with your money, time, and membership in their institution.

So, rug, what have you done in the last two years to help change your church? Or have you just quietly continued to slip money in the collection plate to pay their bills?

[rug]

10. Well, what have you done outside posting in the Religion and A&A Groups on DU?

Not to minimize the enormity of that work.

Surely you don't allow these outrages to continue outside the internet simply because you're not a Catholic.

[trotsky]

11. If you will answer my question first, I'll answer yours.

What have you done to change your church, rug?

And please stop the snarky, snide personal attacks. They are really not necessary.

[rug]

12. I see.

No, you can go first. Let's see if you have a broader point than personal discussion.

[trotsky]

14. Why?

I asked you first. And it's relevant to the thread. What are you doing to change your church?

[rug]

15. Hmm. You asked me first.

What is the proper response?



Ah!

"You can't make me."

[trotsky]

17. Okey dokey.

I asked, you refused. At least it's on the record. Along with your usual snide remarks.

[rug]

21. I hope you realize how juvenile this has become, trotsky,

Assume your implication is correct:

I do nothing but sheepishly shuffle into Mass, place my dollars in the basket and cluck sympathetically at the mention of these scandals. And do nothing else.

Assume that.

That accomplishes . . . . what?

We can then have a flamefest over my personal hypocrisy, laced with ample references to snide remarks and snappy one-liners.

Now assume that my implication is correct:

That you pound away at your keyboard at religious bigotry, nonsense and hypocrisy. You then leave your keyboard, avert your eyes and dangle your arms at the reigious oppression surrounding you, until it is once again time to return to your keyboard and type.

Assume that.

That accomplishes . . . . what?

It's a silly game, trotsky, made sillier by "I asked first".

There are serious and pressing issues. In the end it doesn't matter whether what I do, or don't do, meets with your approval. And vice versa. Your "record" is a child's tallyboard. Put it down.

[trotsky]

22. I've recognized the juvenile nature of this from the beginning.

The problem is, you seem to relish it. I asked you a question. Instead of answering, you mocked me as a keyboard warrior. When I actually give money and donate my time to various progressive and freethought organizations that are fighting the power of religious institutions like your church. It is only through the defeat of your church's political power that real change will come. The only way lay Catholics can do this is to leave the institution. No members, no power.

The rest of us, we have to fight in other ways. And I'm doing that. What are you doing?

[rug]

24. You're wrong that the only way to do this is to leave.

There are many people and many groups, both inside and outside the Church, who are calling the hierarchy to account for the coverups (which, as you know, the hierarchy has acknowledged).

But beyond that, many of these same groups are fostering the explicit social justice doctrines of the RCC and are resisting its purely political drift to the right.

What I do is provide pro bono legal services to one of these groups.

But this is why it's a silly question as to what you or I do or don't do: it's an internet exchange between someone named trotsky and someone numed rug. It is not a stable environment for veracity.

[trotsky]

25. I'm right in that it is the most effective and direct way.

Groups have been trying to change your church from within since it began. A handful have been successful. Most have not. This thread is the latest case in point. The institution itself is simply not designed to listen to anyone outside the conservative male power structure. Look after all your efforts, what is the net result? The guy now in charge is even more conservative than the last one, and who himself was directly involved in coverups!

Leave and take away his power.

[Angry Dragon]

32. I didn't think people under 13 could post here??

Answer the question that was posed to you so the discussion can continue

[mr blur]

33. rug evades question - move along, nothing new to see here.

You have become exceedingly boring. And a true spokeperson for your sad, sick church.

[laconicsax]

6. That's disgusting.

He says that when a priest rapes a child, the real crime is that the priest broke their celibacy vow, not that a child was raped.

And you "absolutely" agree.

[rug]

7. No, he didn't say that.

He said that, as opposed to the rest of the pandemic of child abuse, what makes this particularly loathsome is that it occurs within the context of trust and hypocrisy.

I don't know which is more disgusting, your persistent need to twist others' words to conform to your weird view of reality. Assuming you ever post a sincere thought rather than internet gamesmanship. Or, your glee in using child sexual abuse to maintain your hoary diatribes against religion.

Oh, wait, I do know. It's too obvious.

[laconicsax]

13. Hoary diatribes against religion?

[rug]

16. Yes and that's being generous.

[laconicsax]

18. zzzZzzzZZZZzzzzzzz

[rug]

19. Here, this will help.

[laconicsax]

20. Is that what you wear when the RCC's abetting of child rape is discussed?

[rug]

23. No, it's what I offered you, to go with your smiley.

Thanks for proving my point.

[laconicsax]

26. Hmm...so a single question constitutes a "hoary diatribe..."

Who would have known?

...oh, shit! That's another hoary diatribe, isn't it?

[rug]

27. That's not it.

It's your alacrity to use child rape for an internet quip.

[laconicsax]

29. Child rape is a serious issue.

It's a bit disturbing that you view the rape of a child as a mere quip.

[rug]

30. It is. Too serious for you to grab to make a mere internet quip.

Nice try at another attempt to distort words. Keep practicing but keep child rape out of your banter. It's unseemly.

[laconicsax]

31. At the risk of repeating myself...

There was no quip. Child rape is a very serious issue, as is the role which the Roman Catholic Church played in enabling it.

That's twice now that you've tried to dismiss a very serious issue as a mere "internet quip." Why are you so eager to dismiss the issue?

[meow2u3]

28. Both the celibacy violation and the rape of kids are equally outrageous IMO

Clerical sexual abuse are serious religious AND secular criminal offenses. From a religious Catholic viewpoint, sacrilege is among the most serious religious offenses, especially when a cleric abuses a minor sexually. Catholics believe sacrilege is more damning than desecration, and personal sacrilege even more outrageously heinous, especially when a child falls victim to a pedophile priest. It's bad enough for an allegedly celibate clergyman to be sexually active with an adult; it's even worse for one to violate a child because kids are too young to consent. That makes it a doubly heinous crime: the combination of raping a child and committing sacrilege.

It's not a case of one crime being more serious than the other, but rather, both one crime compounding the other.

Nevertheless, I find it nauseating to have found out how widespead the criminal complicity has been.

[dimbear]

3. The desecration amounted to drilling a hole in the coffin and probably pushing in a camera.

The public excuse is that they're looking for incriminating documents, I hope that's right and not that they're looking for altar boys.

Reconsecrating the burial isn't a big deal.

[meow2u3]

34. Why Pope Benedict will be forced to resign (re: sacriligous sexual abuse of children)

Just Because the Vatican Doesn't Hold the Clergy Responsible, Doesn't Mean the Membership Won't

By Bonehead
Exclusive SHTF411.com


After centuries of torture, genocide and even siding with Nazi Germany, why would the abuse scandal result in the Catholic Church forcing Pope Benedict XVI to step down? Why weren't other more heinous acts punished?

This time, there is going to be hell to pay.

It isn't that the Vatican finds priests raping children to be particularly troublesome, or violating the sanctity of the confessional to be worthy of punishment, even breaking the law isn't of much concern. It will be something more fundamental that will bring down the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

God.

You will notice that the Pope will be talking more and more about how “the Church” should do penance, or how “we” need to apologize. What Benedict is trying to do is to foist the blame from himself, and/or the Vatican on to the membership at large. Most members find the comparison of the Pope to holocaust victims and Jesus on the cross to be particularly offensive.

(snip)

WHY THE ABUSE SCANDAL WILL BE DIFFERENT

The Vatican has held itself above man's laws, and the membership has reluctantly supported the Church in the claim that they are above scrutiny, answering only to God.

God, however, is not without His own rules.

When priests take their vows, they consecrate themselves to the Church, they become a servant of the membership and enjoy Divine protection. They take a vow of chastity. To violate this vow is to commit a sacrilege, which is to desecrate or defile a sacred object. Anyone who knowingly assists in this violation, or is party to it, is also guilty of a sacrilege.

Therefore, priests having sex with anyone – whether it be children, other priests or adult females is committing a sacrilege.

In 2001, Pope John Paul II declared that priests having sex with a minor was delictum gravius, also known as a grave or mortal sin. A mortal sin is one so serious, that it is believed to spiritually separate the sinner from God. Some mortal sins are grounds for automatic excommunication and to die after committing one without repenting would result in the sinner spending eternity in Hell with forgiveness being left up to the mercy of God Almighty.

In order to repent, the sinner must confess full details, names, times, etc. A sexual abuser would be required to confess to every victim, deed, and thought in this regard.

The bigger problem was that the penalty for disclosure was automatic excommunication. Priests found guilty of sexual abuse were only defrocked as an “extreme penalty,” and was only be used as punishment if the defendant had “attained such a degree of temerity and habitude [sic], that there seems to be no hope, humanly speaking, or almost no hope, of his amendment.” Victims who speak out would be cut off from the Church, and from God – there would be no offers of rehabilitation for them, their sins would not be overlooked, there would be no chance to repent.

In other words, priests who rape children and members who turn them in are being held to two different standards. It doesn't take much effort to reach the conclusion that God's laws have been ignored by the clergy.

http://shtf411.com/shtf411-exclusive-why-pope-benedict-will-be-forced-to-resign-t6352.html