Hm.
Morals aren't a matter of law.
Yes. I'm not speaking from my point of view but from a catholic's view in regards to discernment of whether he or she should take communion from any priest regardless his sin.
From a catholic point of view, they are one and the same.
Why would you assume that?
In an ideal world, I would assume a catholic would follow his faith in that all priests sin and the sacrament of the Eucharist isn't invalidated if that repented priest continued to give mass thereafter.
I don't think it's even a matter of "serving his time." IMO, any person who has ever assaulted a child should never again be placed in any role that involves having responsibility for or supervision of children, including the role of parish priest.
I understand that. I'm talking about the church not the law. I wouldn't want "that person" around my child if I knew he didn't make amends. He's a person too. The thing is, I wouldn't know him, so safety would be over my ethics in this matter. What I disagree with in the priest-issue is that people won't let their children go to priests in general because of a handful of silly ones and the church's cover up.
It's almost as if parish priests have some sort of influence in how the church deals with child abusers. (not pedophiles)
Any church that continues to employ such a person is a church that is failing to respect or have proper regard for the safety of its parishoners. It isn't a matter of guilt as much as risk.
Would you attend a church where the roof of the Sunday school was in danger of collapsing? I wouldn't; and it wouldn't matter how sincerely contrite the contractor who messed up the roof was. Until the roof is repaired, I wouldn't set foot in that building... and I'd also wonder what other safety issues were there.
If I knew that priest (or whomever) was at danger to others, sure. I wouldn't go. The stigma that once a criminal always a criminal has always bothered me.
Wait - the people who boycott a predator are worse than the predator? That's a twisted view, IMO.
I don't see the connection.
I know catholics would be betrayed. That doesn't exclude the nature of communion. Theoretically, the priest would have ideally repented to church and to the congregation. Ideally, he would have been convicted and served his sentence.
Unfortunately, regardless if he jumped hoops, not many would forgive him yet they want the priest to forgive them of their sins-as if one sin is greater than another (from a catholic point of view)
It's not even a matter of civil law. Forgiveness deals with past actions; trust deals with future actions. They're separate matters.
Yes. Once they change their actions, they are no longer predators, right?
And my response is that it would be reasonable for them to have a moral problem with taking communion from a priest that had committed a crime if they felt the crime was serious enough.
I can see why they'd feel betrayed or have a moral problem with it. Their feelings isn't what I'm getting at. I was wondering about church teachings on the matter and how a catholic would choose not to take communion (based on church teachings) regardless of his feelings on the matter.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at with the second part of your sentence, so I'll chop it off halfway at what I think is the most relevant portion: "why would a Catholic withhold his trust in a priest?" Lits of reasons.
Oh.
Why would a catholic withhold his trust in the priest (receiving communion) when the crime against the law is not the same as crime against the church.
I was saying, why would a catholic not trust a priest giving communion when the crime that priest committed is not a crime against the church?
My ex would travel across the city, passing many other Catholic churches along the way, to go to one particular church because she liked its gothic architecture. Why wouldn't it be just as valid to go to another church to avoid pedophiles as it would be to avoid mid-century modern architecture?
Child abusers not pedophiles.
If he or she felt that the priest and child abuser was still abusing children and felt he couldn't repent for it, then yeah, that's her right.
I'm not talking about how catholics feel.
(Now, as it happens, the church with the fancy architecture proved to have housed at least two pedophiles, but we didn't know this at the time)
Tell me, why does the church get so special attention? There are thousands of child abusers in the world. It's fine not to have one's child around a convicted child abuser. Unfortunately, the stigma makes him "once a abuser, always an abuser." Of course, better safe than sorry. Though, I'm not talking about legal issues and how one feels. I have strong opinions one way or another but like some topics, I don't like discussing online.
Then ask yourself that. I haven't said anything about government law. I've been focusing on personal conscience.
I'm focusing on church law rather than a person's personal conscious. Of course, catholics can do whatever feels right to them.
I'm just wondering in church laws, would it be right for a catholic to withold taking communion from a priest because that priest committed a sin that catholic disliked?
If the priest forgives the catholic, why can't the catholic forgive the priest? (by church views)
I mean, i know in personal conscious, people wouldn't want to trust the priest anymore. I honestly disagree with the theology in that (the feelings are justified, just the religious ethics don't seem so-that's what I'm talking about)
As I said, forgiveness is about past behaviour. Trust is about future behaviour. Separate concepts.
But priests aren't going to continue with child abuse just because he did it once. Just we don't know him and we judge people we don't know.
Why would a person not let their child go to a priest when not all priests are child abusers?
I can see why you wouldn't the actual abuser, but that's like accusing innocent employees for the boss covering up their co-workers crime.
Then, if that co-worker wants to run his own business, no one would buy from him because of his ex-coworkers mistake and the boss involvement.
I'm not saying that at all. I think it would be reasonable to remove any parish priest who has victimized parishoners, regardless of if he confesses. I also think it's reasonable to avoid - forever, possibly - that priest if he continues in his role, even if he serves a criminal sentence for his crime.
Legally, yeah. I can see it. Religiously, no. I disagree. That's what I'm saying.
AFAIK, there's no Catholic teaching that directs a Catholic to receive a sacrament from a particular priest, or that forbids a Catholic from avoiding getting sacraments from a particular priest (unless avoiding that priest would mean abstaining from the sacraments altogether).
Thank you!
I know that catholics have personal conflicts and want their children to be safe. Religiously speaking, I would hope that doesn't prevent their religious roles of taking communion regardless the priest's sins.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't. They're mine. "It sounds like" is making an assumption based on what you said.
You asked for an example of a priest sexually assaulting a kid as if you weren't familiar with any cases.
I'll have to look back.
Why? Priests are human too. I don't look at every other child abuser's crime on the news regardless of who he is and who he works for. I'd get sick over it.
I'm not addicted to accusing the catholic church. (generalized statement)
The issue with the institution of the Church is with its institutional response to the abuse. Predators and bad actors can be anywhere, but institutions decide how they're going to respond.
I know you have strong opinions about it. I see child abusers as humans just as anyone else. That's my abstract ethics. If my life is in danger, I'd have to break my ethics and save my life. I disagree with killing for any means. If I had to to save my life, that wouldn't change my morals about it. It just means I had to do what I had to do. (Example)
The classic case for how to respond to a crisis is the 1982 Tylenol recall: Johnson & Johnson became aware that somebody had poisoned an unknown number of Tylenol bottles with cyanide. It caused 7 deaths, but because Johnson & Johnson were open and forthright from the outset and took immediate steps to address the problem, the company were hailed as heroes.
Based on the recent history of the Catholic Church, that belief would be on some unjustified assumptions.
Of course there's an "or." Your annoyance at the existence of options that you decided not to consider is really your problem alone.
It's an justified annoyance. I don't like it. What more can I say.
I still don't see why you're bringing criminal law into this.
Forgiveness for past wrongs and trust that there won't be future wrongs are completely separate matters.
Religiously. If a priest asks for forgiveness for his past wrongs, religiously, why would a catholic restrain from receiving communion from him. I know there are personal issues but does that justify the religious morality that all priests sin and child abuse is no different in regards to that.
Seeing how ~7% of priests are implicated in the scandal, it affects the majority if churches and almost every diocese. These days, it's one of the most common reasins for why a Catholic would feel uncomfortable talking communion from a particular priest.
It's sad. The purpose of the church/christianity is to repent, live, and forgive others as christ did for them. Religiously speaking, it's a contradiction to leave the church (my words) etc which many do because they can't forgive the priest yet they want the priest (god) to forgive them.
Their feelings are justified. The logic (that's the right word Im looking for) sounds off.