Nevermind clerical abuse, what’s an ‘unfit’ nun doing wearing priestly regalia?
HOW nice to see the Cat-licks coming to grips with some really important issues.
On the day I received links to the latest horrors emerging from the Australian inquiry into priestly paedophilia, I discovered that a bit of kerfuffle had erupted over a picture of a Carthusian nun, wearing a stole and maniple, posted on the New Liturgical Movement site.
The picture is linked to these words from Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Carthusian nuns have retained the privilege of the consecration of virgins, which they have inherited from the nuns of Prébayon. The consecration, which is given four years after the vows are taken, can only be conferred by the diocesan. The rite differs but slightly from that given in the ‘Pontifical’. The nun is invested with a crown, ring, stole and maniple, the last being worn on the right arm. These ornaments the nun only wears again on the day of her monastic jubilee, and after her death on her bier. It is a consecrated nun who sings the Epistle at the conventual Mass, though without wearing the maniple.
In short, the nuns only get to wear the fancy frock and the accessories three times – the last when she’s a CORPSE!
Well, this too much to a commenter called “Peter”. He demanded to know:
What’s a woman doing wearing vestments that symbolize the priestly office? She is clearly unfit for such an office. I’m surprised the Church made such provisions.
Someone called “Daisy” then jumped in with:
Unfit? The greatest saint in Heaven is a woman. A Cathusian nun on her profession day, jubilee and death is not playing priest. She’s wearing the mantle of her Divine Spouse. Our Lord was Man so only men can be Alter Cristus. However, the word, unfit just isn’t’ the right one in this context.
One of the great things about being Catholic is that there’s always more to learn.
Yeah, like one in 20 Catholic priests are kiddie-fiddlers, although the REAL figure is probably one in 15!
According to this report, RMIT professor Des Cahill told the Victorian Parliamentary child abuse inquiry that his figures, based on analysing conviction rates of priests ordained from Melbourne’s Corpus Christi College, closely matched a much larger American analysis of 105,000 priests which found that 4362 were child sex offenders.
Professor Cahill said that 14 of 378 Corpus Christi priests graduating between 1940 and 1966 were convicted of child sexual abuse, and church authorities had admitted that another four who had died were also abusers, a rate of 4.76 per cent.
But the actual figure was much higher when under-reporting was taken into account, along with cases dealt with in secret by the Catholic Church.
One in 20 is a minimum. It might be one in 15, perhaps not as high as one in 10.
He suggested that, though the Church tried to “fudge the figures” by including other church workers, Catholic priests offended at a much higher rate than other men. If the general male population now over 65 offended at the same rate, there would be 65,614 men living in Australia who had been convicted of child sex abuse — very far from the case.
The intercultural studies professor also told the inquiry that the Catholic Church was incapable of reforming itself because of its internal culture, and described the Church as “a holy and unholy mess, except where religious sisters or laypeople are in charge, for example schools and welfare agencies.
Hat tip: Tim Davies and Bill Murray (abuse inquiry)