Question about Steve's comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, All

In another thread I refered to a dead priest as " Father Geoghan".

There is no doubt this was a very, very, very sick man. My question is that wasn't this person a priest up until he was murdered in prison?

Steve asked me, " why do you continue to call a defrocked ex priest as Father Geoghan?" Was this person a ex-priest? Was he defrocked?

I was taught that a priest is a priest for life. There is no such thing as a ex-priest unless the pope would give him permission.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004

Answers

Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Could he hear Confessions in jail?

I'm all ears Steve.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

John Geoghan was defrocked in 1998, so I'm pretty sure he could not have validly heard confessions in jail.

Your comment on the other thread was right on about our "safe" prisons being unable to protect Geoghan from a murderer serving a life sentence named Joseph Druce. I am not so sure prisons are safer in this day and age. I think, especially for molesters like Geoghan, they are probably Hell on earth.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 21, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

There is no such thing as an "ex-priest" because a person cannot be "un- ordained" any more than he can be "un-baptized". However, a priest's right to minister as a priest are subject to the authority of the local bishop, and those rights can be suspended or terminated for sufficiently serious reason. Therefore the priest becomes functionally an ex-priest, even though he is still in fact a priest. Rather like a doctor whose medical license is suspended or revoked by the authorities who oversee his practice. He/she is still a doctor, but can't practice medicine.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 21, 2004.

Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Does it make a difference whether you are a diocesan or an order priest?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 21, 2004.

Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Thanks fellows.

Welcome to the forum Steve. We will work with you and teach you correct. I started this thread because I wanted you to read it from someone else about calling a priest, Father. There is no Church ruling on this man not being a priest like you wrongly stated in the other thread.

I won't start another thread about the pope being "infalliable" like you wrongly stated, but I would like you to go back into some of the old threads and read up a little and if you have any questions just ask.

It would be a mess if Catholics were required to assent to every opinion that comes out of the Vatican. We would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. This is not how the Church operates.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004.



Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Paul,

The difference between the church and medicine here though is that a defrocked priest can keep practicing in his own schismatic church, whereas a physician who keeps practicing without a license goes to jail. Perhaps if defrocked priests were sent to jail too if they kept saying mass there would be less schismatics and heretics around.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 21, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

It is, of course, possible for a priest to be laicised and perhaps even then go on to marry in a Catholic ceremony. However, as Paul says, he is still not strictly speaking an ex-priest. The catechism explains it thus:

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily.74

1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense,75 because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 21, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Ed,

I mean nothing bad but, I just have to ask.

Are you Steve? :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), May 21, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

David, according to the rules I don't have to tell you, but no, I am not Steve! I have noticed however, the jousts you have with Steve are similar to the ones you sometimes have with me. (LOL!)

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.

Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Thanks Ed!

Don't mind me!God made us all different! Rember I asked nice. :-)

Some of us arn't as simple as our "spelling" appears.

My(pathetic)spelling is bad, but I am trying to work on it. It is hard for me and I work on this.[ My memory is decent]

But- rember when you wanted to make a new forum rule about "bad spelling"? Guess who else made fun of my "horrible" spelling?

Yes Steve brougt my problem up a few times.

Your e-mail somtimes is 4444@yahoo.ca guess what steves is? Yes it is 5555@aol.com

See? I know its you!

-- - (David@excite.com), May 22, 2004.



Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Ed,

While I don't agree with Zarove please show him respect like he shows us.

Its no secret he isn't a good speller too? He is a good man that deserves respect and I think he deserves it.

You have deleted him like he is Nothing.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 22, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

David, normally I would tell you that you're derailing the thread, but since it's your thread, and your original question seems to have been adequately answered, what the heck.

David, I will tell you one final time. I swear to you that I am not Steve. I swear to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton (I know she’s one of your favourite saints, if not THE favourite) that I am not Steve.

I do not dislike Zarove. I did not delete Zarove’s post because he can’t spell and/or because I dislike him. His post was deleted because someone (other than myself), was offended by his post. I hadn’t even noticed his offending remark.

In the same way, I hadn’t noticed R.L.’s offending post until Zarove pointed it out to me. When I examined it, I agreed with Zarove therefore, R.L.’s post was removed as well.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 22, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

I think Zarove should use a spell checker. What's the use of posting if people can't understand it? It's really too bad with Zarove because he seems to have good things to say, but I don't even bother with his longer posts, it's too much effort to get through them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 22, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

I agree Frank, but each time I bring it up I am accused on not liking Zarove, which couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s because I care for him that I would like to see him do better. He’s a bit rough around the edges but I think we could make a helluva Catholic out of him. I too, cannot read his posts. The only reason I discovered his latest transgression was because of a subsequent complaint written against him that I happened to notice.

For some reason that is yet beyond my ability to comprehend, some people in the forum feel that giving Zarove a free pass because of his disability is the kinder, more humane thing to do. I think the opposite is true. We do him no favours in condoning his lack of effort to spell check his work. One of my sons was handicapped. Had I let him escape into his own self-pity as a youngster he wouldn’t be leading the successful life he does today as an adult.

I understand Zarove wants to be a writer and acquiring some additional writing skills would serve him well in the future. I dare say he probably loses more than 75 per cent of his readership because of this. He apparently has some great things to say, but it seems few will ever get a chance to enjoy it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 22, 2004.


Response to Question about Steves comment on "Church ruling on defrocked ex priest"

Ed,

Since you "swear" to Mother Seton than I have to believe you. :-) Sorry about this. I know its a bad feeling to be accused of something that isn't true. I must of lost my ability to be able to pick someone out. :-(

Frank,

I rember reading you talking about a spell checker before. Do all computers have one and all they hard to learn how to use? I guess its about time I start using one. Do you use a "spell checker" in all your posts that you post in forum?

Thanks in advance

-- - (David@excite.com), May 23, 2004.



David, permit me to reply to your question about spell checkers. They are not part of the computer software that comes with your computer. You can find them in most popular word programs like Corel Word Perfect or Microsoft Word. They are a “tool” used by the program to correct spelling.

Usually you prepare what you want to say in the word program itself. If you prefer using Notepad or Wordpad (I don't believe these programs have Spell Check) which comes with windows, after you’ve typed what you want to say, you can “cut and paste” your post to a more sophisticated word program like “Word” or “WordPerfect”. After you have transferred the script to the Word program or have finished typing it in the Word program, position your cursor at the beginning of your text. Then, click on “tools” and then click on “spell checker” and that’s it. In most programs you could also use a “quick reference key”. In WordPerfect the “quick reference key” is “CTRL+F1". The spell checker will automatically go through your text and stop at and show you all of your typing errors and suggest corrections you might want to make. You can also insert your own corrections at this point. You can follow onscreen instructions from there. It is really quite simple.

Spell checker is really quite easy to use and will reduce most of your spelling mistakes. It won’t find some spelling mistakes that form a real word. For example if you want to type “your” and in error you type “you” ( I do this all the time) it will not report a spelling mistake since it thinks you actually wanted to type the word “you”. However, Spell Checker should do away with over 90 per cent of your spelling mistakes the moment you begin using the feature.

From the word program you can then "cut & paste" your spell checked work into the "answer" box of the "post an answer" page of the forum and submit it. Hope this helps. Good luck with it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 23, 2004.


Well David you have enough egg on your face now after exposing your patronizing and misinformed comments to a wider audience on a second thread. As I said on the other one re “infallible”, perhaps I over- estimated my readers’ intelligence by using the shorthand expression “ex-priest”. Of course a priest is a priest forever. But if a doctor had been struck off for pedophilia, his victims would certainly be offended by people continuing to call him “Doctor” and speaking of him as “a doctor”.

By your insistence on referring to him as “priest” and “Father”, you are aping the vicious anti-Catholics in the media who do the same thing, to imply that the Church has done nothing to punish him or to protect children from him. (Contrast this with the way that an ex- cleric doing something good like charity work, is always called “an EX-priest” by the anti-Catholic media, even if he has not been laicized.)

I see Ed is trying to “work with you and teach you correct” spelling. Now you need to also work on your grammar, Catholic doctrine and common courtesy.

Brian, I wouldn’t worry about prison life being Hell for scum like Mr Geoghan. Save your sympathy for his victims. And remember Dante placed bad priests at the very bottom of the Inferno.

I suppose I have to add, I AM NOT ED! It's most amusing how some people here assume that their opinions are so highly regarded that no more than one person in the world could possibly disagree with them.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 23, 2004.


Steve, David, and Eugene, I have come within a whisker of deleting your posts above as well as a few in the thread entitled “Abortion vs. Capital Punishment”, owing to their personalized, patronizing, antagonistic, insulting and confrontational tones. I find this sort of verbal jousting to be detrimental to the fellowship and Christian love this forum is trying to foster. I decided against removing them not wanting to be accused, yet again, of being too subjective; however, if this sort of rhetoric continues, I will have no alternative but to remove your comments. Please, let’s all be more tolerant of each other.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 24, 2004.

No, GT, it makes no difference whether he is a diocesan or religious order priest. The latter could be expelled from his order by his superiors in the order, but only the bishop can terminate his right to function as a priest.

As Paul says, a person cannot be "un- ordained" any more than he can be "un-baptized". Calling Mr Geoghan "a priest" is like calling Hitler "a Catholic" or Stalin "an Orthodox Christian" - technically correct, but functionally incorrect, as well as extremely misleading, and highly offensive to their victims and to the church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 24, 2004.


Ed,

I don't have time to post to Steve tonight, but I don't find his post offensive to me. After all I did accuse him of being you?

If I were Steve I would bring that up too.

I am very grateful to Steve because he gave some of us Catholics a chance to refute his comments on papal infalliabilty, and what the Catechesim teaches on the death penalty. He was soooo confused.

There is no harm being done Ed. Steve knows his opinion has been refuted.

Let men be men please. I am not offended thats for sure.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 25, 2004.


My words stand David. Insults have no place in this forum. They send the wrong message about Catholics to those who visit here. If I find anything offensive in the posts in the future they will be removed.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.


The only thing confusing me is David's idea that he has somehow "refuted" something I said about papal infallibility and what the catechism says about the death penalty. It is I and others who refuted what HE said about both.

And yes I do find his posts very offensive for the reasons Ed stated above. I apologize for coming on a bit strong myself in a couple of my earlier posts reacting to his and Eugene's personal attacks. I suggest the way to "be men" is to make your posts factual and charitable.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 25, 2004.


David,

No, I usually don't use a spell checker on my posts, MOST of the time my spelling isn't that bad. Yours isn't either btw, I can't remember not being able to understand what you were talking about because of spelling errors. Zarove is in a different class though, it isn't just annoying occasional errors for wanna-be English teachers to criticize, it really is (to me) unintelligible. I do understand his disability somewhat, I know a physician who is dyslexic, and I can't tell you how careful he is when writing and double checking everything because he says if he doesn't, it just wouldn't register to him that he was writing incorrectly. The point though is that since he IS careful, one can understand every single syllable he writes, and I've never heard of a medication error or anything like that from him, which is something I can't say of all "normal" physicians I know. His disability may not be cured, but it is definitely managed. This to me is preferable to deliberately inflicting errors on others.

On the spell checker, like Ed said every word processing program has one. When I'm writing up something real, I'll do it in Word and click the speller to look over the whole thing. Works like a charm. The only thing to be careful of is that it won't pick up a word that's actually the wrong word, but spelled correctly, for example if I wrote "work" instead of "word" the spell checker wouldn't see it, but it does pick up most errors. Some things like writing "thier" will be corrected as you type, which is pretty bizarre to me, but there you are.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 25, 2004.


Frank,

Thanks for the explanation.

-- - (David@excite.com), May 26, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ