While driving back from dropping off a carload of stuff at the new apartment, I caught a news report on the top of the hour: A Kenyan Archbishop by the name of Milingo was excommunicated for getting married, and ordaining other married men as bishops without papal authority. (Article)
For those of you who weren't brought up Catholic, excommunication is a sort of religious censure imposed by the church. Until and unless the excommunicated are willing to admit their guilt and repent, they are not permitted to take part in any sacrament. If the excommunicant is unwilling to repent, this essentially condemns them to hell. The inability to attend confession = stains on the soul at death = eternal damnation. It was used as a weapon during the Middle Ages in order to exact obedience from those who would challenge the authority of the church. If a king dared to disobey, entire countries could be excommunicated--the entirety of Scotland has been excommunicated on more than one occasion. To me, this has always seemed like man attempting to impose his will upon God, and completely illegitimate.
This news story set off alarm bells in my head, particularly after hearing the punishment meted out to the priest who admitted to fondling former Representative Mark Foley in the 1960s. The priest, Anthony Mercieca, has been banned from the priesthood, stripped of the ability to celebrate Mass, and may no longer wear vestments... and that's it. (Article)
Where's the eternal damnation for this asshole? How can anyone justify this as a reasonable course of action? Let's break this down: if you ordain a bishop without the Pope's permission, because you believe priests should be permitted to take part in one of Catholicism's seven sacraments--eternal damnation. Fuck a thirteen-year-old boy--lose the robes and you're all good.
To be fair, either Milingo or Mercieca could be redeemed in the eyes of the church by admitting their guilt and repenting. However, I don't think that the punishments fit either of the crimes presented here.
By allowing priests beneath him to marry, Milingo is attempting to infuse new life into the waning Catholic priesthood. Yes, he may be working against Papal authority, but he's doing what he believes to be best for the religion as a whole. Mercieca, on the other hand, used his role as a trusted member of the clergy to exploit and sexually abuse at least one child. If that doesn't merit damnation, I don't know what does.
Don't try to convince me of Papal infallibility in this case--I'm a Buddhist, and I don't believe for a second that the Dalai Lama has never done anything he's later regretted. You show me a man who refuses to admit he's ever made a mistake, and I'll show you George W. Bush.
All in all, the hypocrisy of these cases reek. To paraphrase Archbishop Milingo (from a different article), something is wrong in the Catholic church.
