…and this is a 
They've done it again. They've declared that the ordination of women is as heinous a crime as raping children, simultaneously minimizing the trauma of child-rape and maximizing the insult to women. I don't know how they do it. The Catholic church is rich, they've got a lot of very smart people suckered into their dogma, and they've been the voice of religion in the West for one and half millennia. How can they be so godawful horrible at this?
And then I realized it's the 21st century, they've got lots of money, so they probably have communications experts all over the place. As we all know, the one strategy they all have is to suck up to their audience and never make them uncomfortable with new ideas, so when the Pope or a cardinal consults them on some medieval brain-fart they just had, they encourage him and reassure him and avoid telling him that it's really stupid, and presto, the poor dumb priests confidently announce it to a skeptical world.
And best of all, the PR experts then get to manage the blowback. It's a perfect gig.
Comments
Posted by: Tim
|
July 16, 2010 7:50 AM
Attempted ordination? Before this story, I would have thought such a phrase impossibly absurd.
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
July 16, 2010 7:51 AM
need to point out here that the Vatican wouldn't hesitate to excommunicate for ordaining women priests...
so, please explain ratzi, is female priesthood equal to child rape or is child rape equal to female priesthood?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 16, 2010 7:51 AM
I'd say the guys in cassocks are flatulent muddy warthogs. I won't, though. I'd be simultaneously minimizing how despicable they are and maximizing the insult to flatulent muddy warthogs.
Posted by: Ryan
|
July 16, 2010 7:53 AM
Well, PZ I think you missed something there - you'll probably like to know that desecrating the Eucharist is also up there with woman priests and child abusers. You must get a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the Vatican lumps you in with child abusers. Seriously, they are so out of step with the 21st century that you wonder if they could ever catch up.
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
July 16, 2010 8:03 AM
Come on, it took them 400 years to admit Galileo was right. We'll all have jet packs and monkey butlers in our Venusian mining colonies before the Vatican admits they might have been wrong on this one.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 16, 2010 8:04 AM
So is it just me, or is the Catholic Church seeming more and more like Saturday morning cartoon villains with everything they say?
Are we absolutely certain that the Pope isn't Cobra Commander?
Posted by: pilcrow
|
July 16, 2010 8:13 AM
As Ben Goldacre commented: "So does this mean they'll cover up for anyone who ordains a woman?"
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 16, 2010 8:14 AM
How dare you attack them, PZ! They believe in evolution* so they're really our allies! Surely that one concession makes up for all the other bad things they do?
*Well, sort of.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 16, 2010 8:15 AM
Vatican: all time low. Until the next one...
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 16, 2010 8:18 AM
As far as the men in the Vatican are concerned, they have as big a problem with women as they have with altar boys. Try reading Uta Ranke-Heinemann's book Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, sexuality, and the Catholic Church. It's still hair-raising, but perhaps not quite as surprising as at its original publication two decades ago. These people are scared stiff by women, but not in a good way.
The most puzzling part to me is why women are among the Church's most devoted adherents.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 16, 2010 8:18 AM
Remember, though, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't hate women. Nope, not at all.
Posted by: onethird-man
|
July 16, 2010 8:24 AM
So, wait - if you attempt to ordain a woman they will move you to different parishes and cover it up for thirty years? I'm confused.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 16, 2010 8:28 AM
Ordaining women the same as child rape?
I thought the Roman Catholic Church didn't ordain women.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 16, 2010 8:34 AM
This is what the fear of vaginae will lead to.
Posted by: Paddy-O
|
July 16, 2010 8:34 AM
I think we're looking at this the wrong way. By moving it to the same level as sexual abuse of minors, I think we're going to see a lot of priests ordaining women. Because you know how well condemning those who molest children worked in the Church...
Posted by: jededor
|
July 16, 2010 8:34 AM
Cool. It means they will move bishops that have ordained women from diocese to diocese, where they'll ordain more women, for years until women organise and complain to the police. And since they probably won't, it means we'll soon have more female than male priests.
Posted by: robertdw
|
July 16, 2010 8:34 AM
Actually, this is a really big step forward for the Catholic Church.
Now we can expect sex-abusing priests to receive the same kind of rapid discipline as, say, nuns who perform life-saving abortions or 9 year old girls who have abortions to end the pregnancy resulting from being repeatedly raped by their step-fathers.
That is to say, the sex-abusing priests will be automatically excommunicated within 24-48 hours of the information becoming public, without any chance of a hearing. This is definitely a positive move for the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Cowcakes
|
July 16, 2010 8:37 AM
How anybody who claims to have a moral cell in their body can remain a member of this despicable & morally bankrupt corporation is beyond belief.
Posted by: DeusExNihilum
|
July 16, 2010 8:39 AM
Its also noted in the article that they have no opinion on whether criminals, or people suspected of committing crimes (like child rape) should be reported to the police. You'd think, considering just how shit they are at 'justice', they'd of at least twigged on to the fact that MAYBE catholics should be encouraged to go to secular authorities. After all, it's the only way anything would ever get done.
Full post in my blog
www.splittingoftheadam.blogspot.com
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
July 16, 2010 8:41 AM
Wrong! They don't put it on the same level at all. They punish ordination of women with excommunication, but child rape is dealt with through a transfer. That makes child rape the lesser crime (if at all - a transfer is much like giving the fisherman a brand new pond).
Wow. They introduce a travesty of standards, and then they even fail to apply the ordained consequences they prescribe. What a bone-rotten institution.
The article even mentions they most probably won't make a civil case of ordination of women... On what planet do they think that would even work?
Posted by: Alex the Wonderchemist
|
July 16, 2010 8:42 AM
It goes without saying that the Catholic Church is utterly detached from reality, but on a scale from 1 to bat shit crazy this ranks pretty fucking high. Do they even think before they speak, or do they find it just dribbles out?
I'm ashamed to say it, but a member of my family would probably agree with this declaration. My mother's side of my family is über Catholic (luckily my Mum saw sense and grew out of believing that crap when she was in her teens), and my cousin is so dogmatically Catholic that he has to cross the road whenever he sees a Protestant church, so he doesnt have to share the same side of the road with "Prod scum"... The fact that he is going to become a teacher soon is just horrifying.
The RCC is a dispicable organisation. And its apologists are even more so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 16, 2010 8:43 AM
*visions of feeding the Pope, patriarchs, cardinals and archbishops to the sharktopus
Posted by: degackz
|
July 16, 2010 8:45 AM
In recent years there is so much to be outraged about - people are numb, it's just one soul crushing horror after another.
I was thinking that the application of EEOC rules would pretty clearly show that the Catholic church is in violation, since women can't be ordained. Shouldn't this result in the loss of any US Federal money or tax benefits? I'd love to see a grassroots movement based on "Unequal treatment of women? -> lose your tax exemption"
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 16, 2010 8:46 AM
In the good old days we'd have Piltdown Man, fawning Catholic apologist extraordinaire, to ask about this. Of course, that he'd only express admiration for their evils - or brush them aside as inconsequential and/or 'lies invented by the enemies of the church' - is precisely why he's not here.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
July 16, 2010 8:47 AM
I knew a man who broke the rules—
As many others did—
He didn’t troll through Sunday schools
And try to rape a kid;
He didn’t gag the doctors,
Hard at work promoting health;
He didn’t tithe the destitute
To redistribute wealth;
He didn’t push for ignorance
Of reproductive choice,
Or silence the dissenting gays
Who tried to raise their voice.
Oh, no—this man was worse than that,
The horrid, horrid beast!
He pushed for ordination
Of a woman as a priest!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/07/now-thats-crime.html
Posted by: scimitark
|
July 16, 2010 8:49 AM
I'm starting to think the Catholic Church has just given up on the West. They know they've already lost us due to most Westerners not living in the bronze age.
Unfortunately, the third world still does, in too many places. They don't care if the West gets slightly annoyed, when they gain and keep third world 'leaders' and their political control of religion.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 16, 2010 8:49 AM
Quite frankly, though, I am in favor of any ruling that kicks people out of the church. If they haven't left voluntarily by now, they'll never leave on their own.
Posted by: Jeremie Choquette
|
July 16, 2010 8:55 AM
Wait, are you sure you understood this article PZ? I think what they are trying to say is that, LIKE pedophile priests, female priests will NO LONGER be a serious crime in the church. In fact, if the analogy is true, the church will be actively protecting ordained women, but will shuffle them around from place to place so they don't get caught.
Posted by: rgamsgro
|
July 16, 2010 9:03 AM
Guess it'll be something like this...
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 16, 2010 9:03 AM
A good to know the Church still supports and defends one form of slavery.
Posted by: Nancy New
|
July 16, 2010 9:05 AM
Tsk! OF COURSE wimmin priests would be horrible--because original sin is ALL EVE's FAULT. That nun was wrong, too, because it's ALL EVE's FAULT, and wimmin are still supposed to be paying for that, ad infinitum. And if a priest is tempted by a girl-child instead of a boy-child, she's to blame, because it's ALL EVE's FAULT, since "the woman tempted him."
Posted by: bgsmith42
|
July 16, 2010 9:07 AM
Shplane, #6: Don't be silly. Of course the Pope isn't Cobra Commander.
He's Emperor Palpatine.
Posted by: erpease
|
July 16, 2010 9:07 AM
Attempting to ordain women is highly dangerous (it is attempting from the RC point of view since ordination is a magical act which it is impossible for women to receive) as they might then actually have to listen to women. I wonder how the official investigation of uppity female religious orders is going in the US?
BTW the Episcopal Church (US) is in the midst of an abuse scandal though they are handling it somewhat differently.
Posted by: Theodore
|
July 16, 2010 9:24 AM
So women won't be allowed to run around blabbing nonsense to others. Why again is this a bad thing?
Posted by: Yoav
|
July 16, 2010 9:28 AM
And since we know the RCC is all honky dory with raping children does that mean that Darth ratzi will be ordaining women now.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 16, 2010 9:36 AM
The worst crime of all remains desecrating a cracker.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
July 16, 2010 9:40 AM
Nancy New, you're right, of course, but it is not only 'girl-childs' who are little whores to these sad men, but 'boy-childs', too. I think it was Father Hanley of whom it was said at his trial that he blamed his (boy) victims - that is to say, projected his guilt on to them. A reading of the Vatican's latest, incidentally, suggests that pornography is fine for priests so long as those represented in the pornography are over 14 years old...
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 16, 2010 9:42 AM
Wait, no way the church is EVER pro-pornography. They drive home that masturbation is a mortal sin.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 16, 2010 9:50 AM
It's not the misoginy, its the magic*
The catlicks can't ordain women because doing so would break the magical chain of Apostolic Succession back to Jeebus which makes all priest moral and magical.
All Bishops of the church are made up by previous male bishops back to the original 12 male Apostles. You can't have the magic if you aren't male and ordained by a previous male successor all the way back to St Peter and Jeebus.
The terror the Vatican has of ordaining women is that they will loose the magic because Jeebus didn't give any magic to women. So obviously women can't be magical and trying to give them the magic would ruin the spell for ever and ever and ever.
* in catlick speak the magic is "spiritual and ecclesiastical power through a link with the Apostles guaranteeing authority in matters of faith, morals, and the administration of sacraments."
Posted by: mikelatiolais
|
July 16, 2010 9:54 AM
The RCC has painted itself into a corner. Remember, it holds to the doctrine of infallibility. When the pope speaks ex cathedra(with a couple of rules), or the church as a whole rules through an ecumenical council, it is considered to be a binding doctrinal statement which cannot be revoked. The rules determining whether any particular declaration is infallible are arcane enough to make it fairly easy to deny that some old teachings were infallible statements. It's quite a facinating little shell game that they run.
The practical upshot is that they can't ordain women without destroying the whole edifice of nonsensical dogma that they have build up.For the record, it's the same with the Eastern Orthodox churches, though perhaps to a slightly lesser degree.
Posted by: Harbo
|
July 16, 2010 10:14 AM
Hypothetical:
Nun, or other devout female goes to confession and "confesses" that the sky faery has "called" them to become a priest.
What does the priest do? is HE cursed for not revealing or cursed for revealing. Tough
Posted by: Perspexo
|
July 16, 2010 10:20 AM
I'm kinda glad that the RCC are so impervious to the effect their statements have. Good PR might allow them to portray themselves as "good christians" but here we get the true message of the RCC.
They're a hate filled, misogynistic anachronism and hopefully future gaffs like this will succeed in driving even more people away from their teetering edifice of fear and hate.
Posted by: Darrell E
|
July 16, 2010 10:30 AM
Reposted from WEIT
Cool! The Catholic Hierarchy, the gift that keeps on giving.
I think it is funny as shit how that since this new pope put on the hat everything coming out of the Vatican is so clearly self destructive. And yet, Ratzinger just can’t seem to get a clue.
Ratzinger may end up being the greatest pope ever.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 16, 2010 10:31 AM
What's the deal with the stupid* rule that says a priest must have balls but mustn't use them?
*Notice I didn't say "extraordinarily stupid"
Posted by: El
|
July 16, 2010 10:32 AM
And they are such a bunch of hypocrites, the worst sin for them is the scandal.
That's why they didn't punished Marcial Maciel, because letting him rape children, was better than the scandal.
Posted by: norumaru
|
July 16, 2010 10:36 AM
As much as I hate to speak up in favor of the Catholic Church, I think this is a rather silly connection to make. They have a list of grave crimes against the church, and they put both of these things on it; deducing that they see them as equally bad from that fact alone is like assuming murder and loitering are seen as the same thing because they're both felonies.
It's laughable that ordaining women would be seen as a grave crime, I agree on that - but as far as the RCC is concerned, it's par for the course, I think, and doesn't surprise me much.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2010 10:50 AM
It makes perfect sense to me. How can women be kept barefoot and pregnant, as God intended, if they become priests, where they can only molest children?
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 16, 2010 10:51 AM
El @ 45
and because Marcial Maciel was a personal friend of JPII, made up a whole lot of new priests, brought in loads of cash to the Vatican and spread it around in fat envelopes to Bishops for hush money.
Maciel is a real problem for Ratzinger who wants to fast track JPII to Sainthood. Why did JPII as "god's representative on earth" befriend and bestow honours on Marciel, a womanizing, paedophile who allegedly committed incest by raping his own sons?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
July 16, 2010 10:54 AM
Or, as a mate of mine said, sue the RCC under Equal Opportunities and/or EU human rights laws...!
Posted by: Darrell E
|
July 16, 2010 10:56 AM
norumaru @46 said:
It doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about. Murder and loitering are not both considered "grave" crimes. At least not in any sane system, which is rather the point here.
When you go to the trouble of making a short list of what you consider to be crimes that warrant the worst punishment you are capable of dishing out, then you are most definitely indicating that in your estimation there is a certain equivalence between the crimes on the list.
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 16, 2010 10:58 AM
Loitering is a felony?
And you are mischaracterizing the gravity of female ordination -- in 2007 it was made grounds for automatic excommunication. As far as I know, no priest has actually been excommunicated (as apart from "laicized" or de-frocked) because of raping minors, and unlike ordination of women there is definitely no rule about automatic excommunication. By the criterion of punishment, female ordination is a worse cannon crime.
And it's not like there aren't Catholics themselves going "WTF?!"
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 16, 2010 11:02 AM
Some folks upthread are a little confused about the punishments handed out by Church law. According to the stuff I dug up last night while composing a post on this:
Sexual abuse of a minor: priest is defrocked, ie. is no longer a priest, but is still a Catholic.
Ordaining a woman: officiating priest is defrocked AND excommunicated.
IOW, the punishment for ordaining a woman is *more severe* than the punishment for raping kids.
Which illustrates a major moral flaw in much religion (specifically Christianity; can't speak for all the rest): it places higher value on the maintenance of theological abstractions (like the sanctity of the Eucharistic elements; the mumbo-jumbo by which only men can work the priest-majick; mysterianism about "marriage" being essentially opposite-sex) than on the material welfare of real humans.
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 16, 2010 11:15 AM
norumaru @46:
WTF?
The two acts are explicitly placed in the same extreme class by virtue of now meriting the gravest punishment the Church thinks it can administer.
From our point of view, the comparison is ridiculous (non-existent, in fact), but not from theirs.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 16, 2010 11:26 AM
To make that analogy hold, you need to live in a world where all felonies supposed to carry life imprisonment sentences, but those are only carried out on the loiterers. And a bunch of the judges are murderers. The jury, too. And the President wishes you'd shut up with that petty gossip about the murders already.Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2010 11:42 AM
Tulse@51-
So much for the Come Back to Catholicism or whatever that recent PR campaign was. But they'll stay for the sake of the kids, because where else are children supposed to get their moral values from?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
July 16, 2010 12:30 PM
Moral values...is that what they're calling genital warts these days?
Posted by: Lee
|
July 16, 2010 12:35 PM
Evidence indicates that they are not opposed to child rape. Does this mean that they are no longer opposed to the ordination of women?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 16, 2010 1:08 PM
from the article:
"in reaction to the scandals that have been sweeping through the church since January."
January of what year?
"Which illustrates a major moral flaw in much religion (specifically Christianity; can't speak for all the rest): it places higher value on the maintenance of theological abstractions (like the sanctity of the Eucharistic elements; the mumbo-jumbo by which only men can work the priest-majick; mysterianism about "marriage" being essentially opposite-sex) than on the material welfare of real humans."
I wouldn't mind that so much if they didn't think they were somehow also the guardians of human welfare.
Posted by: deiloh
|
July 16, 2010 1:10 PM
I know a number of Catholics. Good news: they don't pay much attention to what the Vatican does or says. Bad news: they don't pay much attention to what the Vatican does or says.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 16, 2010 1:19 PM
One of the pinnacles of papal infallibility.
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 16, 2010 1:26 PM
From the article:
Church court? Church fucking court? Listen, church: we have a functioning secular legal system which can try people charged with child rape. When a priest is accused, hand them over to the secular authorities. Why do you need fake courts of your own?
Posted by: tsig0
|
July 16, 2010 1:34 PM
Can't challenge the supremacy of the dicks.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 16, 2010 2:14 PM
Further proof, if proof were needed, that the catholic church and reality parted company acrimoniously some centuries ago.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkHcqnmARF1Rfg0CVe6QjAgZF6qeHSErJM
|
July 16, 2010 2:29 PM
Hello first post here, reader for a long time.
vatican link
One of the moral crimes to be referred to the Inquisition:
Seems reasonable to me, priests shouldn't be looking at porn, it's not holy.
But wait, I lied. First post, I fucking lied.
The above is not a quote but an edit. Here is the quote - check Art. 6 for yourself at the link above.
my bold.
So what, looking at 15 year old kids in porn is OK for Catholic priests? Eew.
Fuck the motherfuckers!
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
July 16, 2010 2:39 PM
I never used to have a high opinion of Henry VIII, but pretty much every time Pope Palpatine opens his mouth, I find myself feeling more and more grateful for the fat murderous bastard.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 16, 2010 2:57 PM
More papal bullshit.
Posted by: Jolo5309
|
July 16, 2010 3:01 PM
Pschology Today has an interesting article on this. They also talk about hebephiles (sexual attraction to young teens).
Posted by: morriganscrow
|
July 16, 2010 3:31 PM
Sadly, the Digital Cuttlefish already has a cuttlespouse, otherwise I'd happily volunteer for the job. That poem made me snortle in a most unladylike fashion.
Posted by: Marek14
|
July 16, 2010 3:40 PM
The good and evil -- those are just words
Enforced by laws and guns and swords
And if we didn't have our divine might
How could we know just what is right?
There are some people who're not like Us
Try understanding? Nah, we pass
They abort kids, or even worse
They carry condoms in their purse
We can no longer kill those rats
The rulers today are bureaucrats
If one little book has worked so well
The books of church law will cause true hell
Our truth is final, without fault
No change permitted in this vault
If any -- gasp! -- girl should find way here
Then everything would disappear
The magic would drain out of the frocks
And poor simpletons from our flocks
Would suffer should the magic fade
Just think of all those poor kids, unraped
We should look that we truly care
So let's put "don't rape children!" there
You know -- nudge, nudge -- just what we mean
If you are caught, just change the scene...
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 16, 2010 3:40 PM
norumaru @46:
"In pari materia" (Upon the same matter or subject)is a basic rule of the interpretation of legal statutes.
So when the Vatican puts a list of crimes in the same document stating that only the Inquis- I mean Congregation for the doctrine of the faith has jurisdiction over those crimes, basic legal interpretation says they should be read together as being in the same class of offence.
Posted by: jaybgee
|
July 16, 2010 3:46 PM
WTF???? There's a problem with the priests raping children, so instead of focusing on the priests, they prevent a different group of people (not at all responsible for raping children) from becoming priests? Why? Because people that have no records of child raping are more likely to rape kids than those that do have a record? That just makes my head want to explode.Posted by: elzoog
|
July 16, 2010 8:44 PM
Hey PZ, you don't understand. Actually this is GOOD news for women. The reason I say this is, that since it's obvious the Vatican doesn't really think that raping children is a serious crime (given by their reaction to priests doing it) this means that ordaining women is not a serious crime either. After all, the two are the same according to them right?
Posted by: DLC
|
July 16, 2010 8:47 PM
So, women can't be Sith lords ?
Posted by: elzoog
|
July 16, 2010 9:07 PM
#73
Given the stuff that comes from the Vatican, women priests wouldn't be "Sith lords". Instead, they would be "Shit lords".
Posted by: blf
|
July 18, 2010 4:25 AM
norumaru@46 hints at how the Rape Children Cult managed to convince people approving a potential woman rapist and actually raping a child are “equivalent”. Writing in the Grauniad, Andrew Brown explains (my emboldening):
He then goes on to suggest the two lists should have been published separately.