Getting medieval on his ass
29 December 2005 by Sean
A priest in Southern California is being tried by the Roman Catholic church for heresy and schism.
How quaint.
Apparently, this guy, Ned Reidy, is part of a mini sub-cult (of the big Roman Catholic cult) that wants to ordain women, allow married men into the priesthood, give communion to divorced people, all sorts of evil shit. So the local diocese is putting him on trial as a heretic so they can formally defrock and ex-communicate him.
Tom Roberts, editor of the National Catholic Reporter, is quoted as saying “If he’s an effective minister, someone who’s been high profile in the community, and he leaves and co-founds his own denomination, I can understand the bishop wanting to make a special statement about this person. I also don’t think Catholics are confused by these issues. I don’t think they would mistake this person as a Roman Catholic cleric.”
So Catholics aren’t confused by these issues? Then tell me, Catholics, why can’t a woman be ordained in your backwards-ass code of ethics? Why don’t women have equal rights in the Catholic church, as they have gained elsewhere in the modern Western world? Is it cuz you still think it’s 1633 and the Earth is flat?
29 December 2005, on 9:25 pm
American Catholicism is rapidly on the way to becoming a protestant religion. This is not a surprise, and the new Pope is a rabid traditionalist, who is almost certainly seeking a return of the church’s somewhat dictatorial power. That isn’t going to wash well with Americans. Rather amusingly, the Americans who might have bought into the church getting all old-testament have already ceded from it into other religions!
29 December 2005, on 11:22 pm
Whats even funnier is that this priest is not involved in a little ’subcult’ but rather representative of mainstream Catholiicism. It would be easier to argue that the Pope and his consorts are the mini cult. Most polls put the divorce issue in the church at 70-90% in favor of the scorned priests view.
I mean seriously, isn’t it an odd thing that any body of humans will forgive and cover up a pedophile priest, murderers, and rapists but condemn someone for getting a divorce? On that issue alone protestants get the nod from me. Whats even worse is that the church used to grant divorces before and had nothing to say on marriage at all until the 1200’s. And all this comes from a misreading of a single text. It’s a shame what religion can do to peoples minds.
It’s so freaking stupid and illogical the mind boggles.
30 December 2005, on 3:28 pm
*off topic sorta*
Sean, did you put that “Joey Ratzo” coin picture in flickr? Holy jeezus on fire that’s funny!
30 December 2005, on 3:46 pm
Sean,
I see that you found a photograph of my bedroom. Thanks for posting the photo on this thread. Sleep-overs will never be the same.
30 December 2005, on 4:10 pm
Rockstar: Nah, it wasn’t me. I’d bet it was Ron. He likes to call him Joey Ratzo.
Dena: Could you buy some more pillows soon?
31 December 2005, on 11:10 am
Can anyone clarify something for me? Is it the general opinion that one form of Christianity is better than another? Is it a case of the lesser of two evils? I know the general opinion is, of course, that no religion is good, and that we should simply follow the factual logic of men, but is there one form of religion more easily tolerable? I personally have many issues with fundemental christians and their lack of christian fundementals (love, charity, hospitality, etc ) Thanks!
oh, I should point out that I am a christian, and I’m not trying to pretend to be an atheist or anything like that. I do however respect the athiest view. Just like anything else, there are “good” athiests and there are “bad” christians, and vice versa.
31 December 2005, on 5:55 pm
I know the general opinion is, of course, that no religion is good, and that we should simply follow the factual logic of men
Well, the point of atheism is to say that religion is the unfounded, illogic of men. That to start one’s day believing in ghosts is an unhealthy worldview. That from the beginning one should open one’s eyes, look around, and base one’s thinking on the observable universe, not one filled with invisible beings, malevolent or benign.
No one religion is worse than the other… However, the application of organized religion — the controlling of thought in large numbers of people, and especially the use of that thought control as a tool of hatred, that is worse by far than simply believing what you believe and leaving others to live in peace. We believe a democracy, for instance, should never endorse any religion. It may fight to defend your right to your religion, but that’s a totally different thing.
Like I say to people who come to San Francisco with intolerant religious views and then act shocked at two men kissing in the Castro: This town believes in a little thing we like to call “live and let live.” Most good people have a hard time arguing with that.
If you pay close attention to the postings on this site, the ones that criticize someone’s actions based on their religion are almost always also about someone having their rights taken away, infringed upon — or someone forcing their beliefs on others. It’s not what you believe, but how it affects others that is of greatest concern.
3 January 2006, on 12:54 pm
“It’s not what you believe, but how it affects others that is of greatest concern.”
PREZACTLY. Atheists that I know (myself included) don’t even remotely care what goofy fairy tales others believes in. I don’t care what you teach your kids at home, I don’t care what god you believe in. You’re free to follow what you like.
I do care when you (the collective “you”) try to force me to live the way you’ve chosen to.
6 January 2006, on 8:41 pm
Lya, I have to disagree with you when you say you “don’t care what you teach your kids at home.” I was raised by extreme fundamentalists. They were extremely abusive. People keep bashing the catholic church, but they’re just a little more high profile because it’s hard to keep track of all the little protestant fundamentalist groups. I mean, there are what, 52 kinds of baptists? If you add them all up there are way more instances of abuse than there are with catholic priests, the numbers are just less impressive because they fall into different columns. But I’m getting off point. I think that despite all that, the most abusive thing my parents did was the indoctrination. Teaching your kids to hate people is just wrong. They do it partly to keep you from questioning their religeon… i mean, if you thought some other variety of baptist was getting into heaven too, you might join the dark side. Then they do it partly to keep the abuse from getting out… if kids have real friends, they won’t need an invisible one and they might say something about what’s going on at home. This all follows from fathers being the head of the household and owning their families. I have a serious problem with religeous indoctrination. If people actually believe their religion is right, they could skip the indoctrination step and their kids would choose it anyway. Its a little disturbing to see perfectly rational people say that it’s ok for people to be religeous if they don’t interfere with the rights of other adults but it’s fine if their kids don’t have any rights.
Some religeons simply are better than others. I’ll take liberal versions of christianity and islam over the fundamentalist nutjobs any day. Not just because of how they treat other adults, but because of how they treat kids as well.
9 January 2006, on 9:52 am
Duly noted. By that I simply meant I don’t care if they teach their kids to believe in god. Though, admittedly I do care if they are raising violent homophobes, or something of that ilk.