The unforgivable sin
By Diogenes (articles ) | Sep 25, 2004
Recently I've been thinking: Is there anything that US bishops will not tolerate? The intense bureaucratic response to the "Dallas Charter" has clarified things for me.
As a practical matter: - You can deny the Real Presence - You can be married several times - You can never go to Mass - You can support abortion - You can preach heresy - You can throw condoms at priests. These things might draw mild protests from the hierarchy, but no disciplinary action. You can still pass yourself off as a Catholic. You can still be a member of the KofC. You can still teach theology in a Catholic school.
But if you refuse to be fingerprinted, by golly you're not going to work in a parish. Not even as a volunteer.
I conclude that the failure to fingerprint is the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our January expenses ($14,166 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Sep. 28, 2004 7:31 PM ET USA
I would not accept fingerprinting under any circumstances. This is an episcopally engineered crisis not a laity caused crisis. However, it would be more palatable if all bishops and priests had to take lie detector tests and urine and drug tests. In view of the protection of priests and later bishops by local police and prosecutors the fingerprints would not provide any information at all about them. Diogenes also left off joining secret societies (Kerrry - Skull and Bones) forbidden by code
Posted by: Abraham Tolemahcs -
Sep. 27, 2004 4:17 PM ET USA
Fingerprinting is a smoke screen by the bishops and is TOTALLY obfuscating the real issue: the pirates parading as priests have been and continue to find safe haven with the bishops and certain U.S. Cardinals. Fingerprinting won't stop the sexual abuse but it will stop some lay faithful from being involved in their parish & monitoring some of these deviants. The abuses and heresies won't stop until there is discipline &"...the scalps of the guilty are hanging from some bishops belt."
Posted by: AveMaria580 -
Sep. 26, 2004 12:31 PM ET USA
I might consider supporting this IF all bishops were finger-printed first. And, all priests known to have abused adolescents. Then, maybe it would be permissible. It is incredible that the innocent are increasingly faced with regulations but those whose behavior instigated the mess remain for the most part untouched.
Posted by: -
Sep. 25, 2004 10:24 PM ET USA
St. John Vianney would not have needed to have his fingerprints taken. But he would have done so, out of obedience. But fingerprints never protected a child - nothing like ordaining a priest in love with God who wants nothing more than to work for His greater glory and to save as many souls as possible. Worldly men turn to worldly solutions of crimes derived from too great an attachment to the world, the flesh and the pride of life.
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Sep. 25, 2004 9:43 PM ET USA
I was first fingerprinted when I took jobs in college with New York City and New York State. I was again fingerprinted as a Peace Corps Volunteer. When I went to work on Wall Street for Lehman Brothers, I was fingerprinted as an employee of a NASD company. Its purpose is to establish identity, it is not an accusation. Bringing this up is a red herring.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Sep. 25, 2004 5:40 PM ET USA
This is a first. First time I have ever disagreed with Diogenes. I'm with him all the way to just before the end. I agree with his implication that divorces, heretics, pro-choicers, dissidents and such should be banned. But I agree with the bishops on the fingerprinting requirement. The fact that they protect the abusers of children doesn't mean it's wrong to protect the children.
Posted by: -
Sep. 25, 2004 3:32 PM ET USA
I know a first-rate Deacon who is now "unemployed." He refused to be finger-printed, on the ground that he never committed a crime and was in no way planning to commit one. So he is barred from all our churches. As you say, apparently the one unforgivable crime. What a bunch of j---a--es are running things !