Re: 天主教學校 不推動性平法
我知道 我在這裡發表意見 不但 無法改變宗教徒的想法 甚至還會造成筆戰 但是 該說的還是必須說出來 不然 將那些想說的話放在心裡不說出來 是不誠懇的 是虛假的 我必須說出我的真心話 我雖然不是同志 但是 我認識一些同志朋友 (男女同志都有) 在我長期的觀察之下 其實 有的乃後天 也就是自己的選擇 但是 有的是先天 也就是說他們無從選擇的只能選擇愛上同性 並不像宗教團體所說的"完全是後天" 或者是" 幾乎是後天 "雖然 我有遇過那種不反對同志行為的宗教徒 但是 那都是年紀比較小的年輕人 而年齡較長的宗教徒 無論是信仰何種宗教 基本上都非常反對同志行為 而且 他們都一口咬定 同志只有後天沒有先天 但是 當我問他們 你們有無認識同志朋友的時候 他們無一例外的都說沒有 這個時候我總是笑的很開心 因為 我覺得人類好像多少都患有不懂裝懂或者是明明沒有經歷過或觀察過就以為自己很懂 很了解某些事情或某些現象之類的通病(也可以說這是自以為是的通病) 我就回他們說:既然 你們沒有像我一樣有認識同志朋友 怎麼還敢在我面前高談闊論 談論同志議題 並且 很肯定的說 同志只有先天 沒有後天 請你們不要不懂裝懂 不要逗我笑了好嗎? 他們總是說"神是全知全能的 所以說同志是後天絕對沒有錯" 或者說"聖人說的話一定是對的" 諸如此類這些讓我哭笑不得的話 到底有沒有存在著擁有超自然力及人格化的鬼神 以我們人類的知識及經驗都無法得知了 你們又如何知道 你們所崇拜的神是不是全知全能 絕對無誤 再說 美國天主教修女有四成以上遭受性侵的事件 早已不是新聞 但是 這些施暴的神父及修女卻很少受到應有的懲罰 我們看到的只是教會在推諉責任 避重就輕 完全沒有讓我感到天主教有予以譴責以及自我反省的決心 跟他們在譴責同志 墮胎 以及婚前性行為等議題上的態度可以說是大相逕庭 此乃極度的偽善 現在竟然還不推動性別平等教育法 司馬昭之心 由此可見得(此為個人言論 不代表本網 要找麻煩 就找我吧 本人奉陪)
Re: 天主教學校 不推動性平法
The Irish Times - Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Irish attempts to grapple with abuse frustrated by Rome
ANALYSIS: Criticism of the Irish bishops this week should not deflect attention from the role of the Vatican in the clerical abuse scandal, writes PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent, in Rome
IT CAN only be hoped that today’s discussions in Rome on what Cardinal Claudio Hummes has memorably described as “the painful Irish happenings” will reflect on the role not just of the Irish bishops but also of the Vatican itself.
Rome consistently tripped up the Irish church as it attempted to come to grips with the issue of clerical child sex abuse, and Cardinal Hummes – who is taking part in this week’s discussions with Pope Benedict XVI, his senior curial colleagues and 24 Irish bishops – is uniquely placed to understand just how.
He is prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy which refused to give recognition to child protection guidelines introduced by the Irish bishops in their 1996 Framework Document and again in their updated 2005 Our Children, Our Church document.
It meant those guidelines were “only guidelines”, as Cardinal Connell memorably told Marie Collins in December 1996, less than a year after that Framework Document was published (in January 1996). They did not have to be followed and were not binding in canon law, Cardinal Connell said.
He should know. He was then a member of the Congregation for the Clergy and was known to be unenthusiastic about the Framework Document . His concern was with the risk to the good name of an accused priest.
This lack of recognition by Rome meant that an accused priest could appeal to the Vatican over his bishop’s head if action was taken against him on foot of an allegation of child sex abuse and that, most likely, the priest would win as there was no backing for such a bishop’s action in Rome.
As Cardinal Connell would have been aware there was a precedent for this in an “Irish happening” of the early 1990s. Following a canonical trial it was recommended to Rome that an Irish priest be laicised on foot of allegations of child sex abuse.
The priest appealed the decision to Rome, which decided he should not be laicised but should spend time in a monastery before resuming his priestly ministry. However, in the intervening years between the priest’s making his appeal and Rome’s decision he abused another boy, on foot of which he was jailed. It was then Rome decided to laicise him.
Despite this Rome still refused to give the Irish bishops’ 1996 Framework Document or their Our Children, Our Church document of 2005 its backing, meaning those documents were not worth the paper they were written on.
As the Murphy report put it: “The Framework Document (1996) was not a norm and therefore was not binding on individual bishops. The Holy See did not formally recognise it either. Victims have expressed disappointment that neither the Framework Document nor its successor, Our Children, Our Church (2005), received recognition from Rome, thus leaving both documents without legal status under canon law.
“This was in direct contrast to the approach adopted by the Holy See to the request of the American Conference of Bishops, who sought and received recognition for their 2002 and 2006 norms. The fact that a number of the bishops in the USA disagreed with the norms was probably a factor in Rome granting recognition to the USA norms and thus making them binding in canon law.”
The report continued: “Bishops wanted procedures that they could be certain of; they felt extremely vulnerable because in 1996 . . . they were meeting an onslaught of complaints and Rome was pulling any particular solid ground that they had from under them.”
The former chancellor of the Dublin archdiocese, Msgr Alex Stenson, told the commission that “Rome had reservations about its [the Framework Document ’s] policy of reporting to the civil authorities. The basis of the reservation was that the making of a report put the reputation and good name of a priest at risk.”
Not content with “pulling any particular solid ground that they had” from under the Irish bishops, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith went on to ignore co-operation with the Murphy commission and, for good measure, its papal nuncio twice refused to respond to commission correspondence.
It is clear Rome itself has profound questions to answer concerning “the painful Irish happenings”.
Re: 天主教學校 不推動性平法