# Fuck the Motherfucking Pope **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182 "2010-05-20T21:15:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/401 "2010-05-24T02:28:30Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > The problem is that Catholic church officials never hesitate to lecture the rest of us on proper moral behavior while behaving atrociously themselves. > > Condoms? Bad! > > Gay sex? Bad! > > Birth control pills? Bad! > > Sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes? Bad! > > \ > [@Bricker](#): > > Perfect example: > > _Umm… actually, no, the Church doesn’t say that sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad at all. To the contrary, it says…_ > > AAAH! SHUT UP!! BAD, BAD, DIDN’T YOU HEAR ME?!? How dare you defend the Church? > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Don’t they argue that sex that excludes the possibility of conception is morally wrong? > > :dubious: If I am not mistaken, you’re correct; that is precisely what the Church asserts. It is _not_ precisely what you said in your laundry list above. And what **Bricker** responded to was the imprecision. When engaging **Bricker** , precision is important. It has been my experience that he is honest and above-board when his opponents hold themselves responsible for the same level of precision that he holds himself to. It has also been my experience that on the occasions when he gets sloppy with his precision, and is called out on it, he accepts correction. I do not intend to imply that my experience of his posting history and patterns represents the totality of his posting history and patterns. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/402 "2010-05-24T02:33:58Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure you can can reinstate him, but punishing people for allegations is not right; would you agree on similar procedures for all allegation of crimes? > Defrocking a priest is basically cancelling his licence, not a suspension or administrative leave. I’m not inclined to give the RCC a lot of slack, here, but if defrocked isn’t the best term, then suspend the priest, or investigate him, or curtail activities that include contact with children, whatever… The point being that even a single case of a shuffled pedophile priest resets the RCC’s credibility to zero, and they’ll need a good decade or more, I figure, to move it up even slightly. I’m afraid the priest has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that gets little or no sympathy from me, so I’m entirely unmoved by the plight of the wrongfully accused. Among the egregious repeat-abuse cases, which is most recent, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/403 "2010-05-24T02:36:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I think they are, but they view trust as something they are owed by the flock, not something they have to earn. They’re the ones God chose for the job, they’re the institution founded by Peter, right? Founded by Jesus Christ, I believe is how they prefer to put it. And if a non-divine entity _is_ given credit, I think that is generally assigned to Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/404 "2010-05-24T03:08:57Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > If I am not mistaken, you’re correct; that is precisely what the Church asserts. Actually, while I disagree with a lot of what the church teaches, that’s actually wrong. The Catholic church teaches that while each sex act should be OPEN to the possibility of creation, it doesn’t mean it’s WRONG to have sex for pleasure. Just that you should welcome the possibility of a child if it you happen to conceive. Otherwise, that would mean infertile couples and the elderly would be forbidden to have sex, which isn’t true. NOT that this excuses the church’s position on birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/405 "2010-05-24T03:09:03Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes? Bad! > [@Bricker](#): > > Umm… actually, no, the Church doesn’t say that sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad at all. > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Don’t they argue that sex that excludes the possibility of conception is morally wrong? > > :dubious: Yes. But surely you can see that the two statements are not the same. Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Even sex that is planned to avoid procreation is fine: a couple can use the same techniques that fertility doctors suggest to enhance chances of conception to avoid it: charting basal temperature and precise times of ovulation is perfectly acceptable. What the Church forbids is artificial methods that prevent even the possibility of conception. Scream all you like about what a foolish view that is. You won’t hear a peep from me. But you may not characterize it as “sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad.” Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Sex that involves an artificial barrier to conception is bad. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/406 "2010-05-24T03:10:22Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Actually, while I disagree with a lot of what the church teaches, that’s actually wrong. The Catholic church teaches that while each sex act should be OPEN to the possibility of creation, it doesn’t mean it’s WRONG to have sex for pleasure. Just that you should welcome the possibility of a child if it you happen to conceive. > > Otherwise, that would mean infertile couples and the elderly would be forbidden to have sex, which isn’t true. Correct. And don’t worry – since you’re on the correct-thinking side of this debate, probably no one will scream at you for defending the Church. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/407 "2010-05-24T03:21:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not inclined to give the RCC a lot of slack, here, but if defrocked isn’t the best term, then suspend the priest, or investigate him, or curtail activities that include contact with children, whatever… The point being that even a single case of a shuffled pedophile priest resets the RCC’s credibility to zero, and they’ll need a good decade or more, I figure, to move it up even slightly. That is the current protocol: even s single accusation results in suspension while the allegation is investigated. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid the priest has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that gets little or no sympathy from me, so I’m entirely unmoved by the plight of the wrongfully accused. Unfortunately, this reads like “advice” from someone who wants to see the Church vanish, and I don’t agree it should be taken at all seriously. You SHOULD be moved by the plight of the wrongfully accused. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/408 "2010-05-24T03:24:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not inclined to give the RCC a lot of slack, here, but if defrocked isn’t the best term, then suspend the priest, or investigate him, or curtail activities that include contact with children, whatever… The point being that even a single case of a shuffled pedophile priest resets the RCC’s credibility to zero, and they’ll need a good decade or more, I figure, to move it up even slightly. I’m afraid the priest has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that gets little or no sympathy from me, so I’m entirely unmoved by the plight of the wrongfully accused. > > Among the egregious repeat-abuse cases, which is most recent, anyway? Agreed. If the case has any traction, the accused should, at minimum, be removed from contact with children in general and the group of children involved in the accusation in particular. However, the priest has both canon law and civil law right that should not be abridged. Do all organisation that shuffle child molesters get the same zero-credibility treatment? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Actually, while I disagree with a lot of what the church teaches, that’s actually wrong. The Catholic church teaches that while each sex act should be OPEN to the possibility of creation, it doesn’t mean it’s WRONG to have sex for pleasure. Just that you should welcome the possibility of a child if it you happen to conceive. > > Otherwise, that would mean infertile couples and the elderly would be forbidden to have sex, which isn’t true. > NOT that this excuses the church’s position on birth control. Thanks for the honesty. You’re still going to hell tough :), but thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/409 "2010-05-24T03:27:28Z")
Crown of thorns a little tight there, **Bricker**? :rolleyes: ETA: Oh, I know that. But I’m probably in good company. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/410 "2010-05-24T03:42:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. But surely you can see that the two statements are not the same. > > Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Even sex that is planned to avoid procreation is fine: a couple can use the same techniques that fertility doctors suggest to enhance chances of conception to avoid it: charting basal temperature and precise times of ovulation is perfectly acceptable. > > What the Church forbids is artificial methods that prevent even the possibility of conception. > > Scream all you like about what a foolish view that is. You won’t hear a peep from me. > > But you may not characterize it as “sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad.” Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Sex that involves an artificial barrier to conception is bad. See what I mean? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/411 "2010-05-24T06:06:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > And don’t worry – since you’re on the correct-thinking side of this debate, probably no one will scream at you for defending the Church. That sounded more like a clarification, not a defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/412 "2010-05-24T06:38:29Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > That sounded more like a clarification, not a defense. Shit, I only read this very last page of this thread, and I can tell you **Bricker** knows that full well; he’s taking jabs at the anti-Church side for claiming that anyone who’s not out-and-out condemning the Church with every post is a defender. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/413 "2010-05-24T09:15:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fine, fine – you oppose. But I assume you wouldn’t argue that application of such a law is evil, or idiotic. After all, it’s clear that the law is intended to apply to a wide variety of situations, and rather than try to write in “…except in cases where it’s ultra-obvious that the cop was in the right…” and then be faced with arguing about just how ultra- we need to be, they impose a blanket requirement for review. You would perhaps do it differently, but can you really say it’s insane to do it that way? > > Yes, but like so many laws, it’s written to apply to the vast majority of situations. What great harm is it for a nun to receive the sacrament of penance? What great harm is the imposition of an automatic penalty until she receives that sacrament? Well **Bricker,** you’re a smart guy - you know that what is just as important as what’s said, is the way that it’s said. What if the Bishop guy had said something along the lines of “well although canon law automatically excommunicates in cases of abortion, should the facts prove that the mother was at imminient risk of her life, the Nun will be reinstated post haste”? Just the same as in you policeman case, if the Commisionier of police stressed that the “investigation” was an administrative matter and that he had every confidence that the officer in this case has behaved properly and within the bounds of his training? And please don’t come back citing some sort of sub-judice clap trap or an unwillingness to influence or pre-empt the findings. With 15 minutes thought, someone famililiar with Canon Law can come up with the appropriate wording for a opinion neutral statement that showed support for the nun. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/414 "2010-05-24T09:38:52Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > will procure a vasectomy for my husband. Goodness gracious me :eek: 😃 I hope he agrees 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/415 "2010-05-24T10:54:54Z")
It is really much more complicated than Bricker suggests. You must have the possibility of pregnancy with each and every sexual act of any kind. The CC accepts PIV intercourse sufficient for this that’s why old people can have sex. However say the husband is impotent because of diabetes for instance, that couple is forbidden from engaging is any kind of sexual expression. A related condition: > [@](#): > > What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph. > **[Private Site](https://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/impotence-marriage/)** Romantic is it not. Also NFP “birth control” must only be used for “just reasons” you can’t simply say we are only going to have two children spaced three years apart you must have a good reason to limit family size. > [@](#): > > Serious motives, just reasons, proportionately serious reasons. The Church teaches the necessity of just or serious motives or reasons for couples to use the infertile periods of a woman’s cycle for the purpose of spacing births. In doing so she is trying to insure that the natural methods of spacing children are used in a virtuous and loving way, i.e., unselfishly. Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love. [http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp\_serious\_motives.htm](http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm) ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/416 "2010-05-24T11:38:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. But surely you can see that the two statements are not the same. > > Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Even sex that is planned to avoid procreation is fine: a couple can use the same techniques that fertility doctors suggest to enhance chances of conception to avoid it: charting basal temperature and precise times of ovulation is perfectly acceptable. > > What the Church forbids is artificial methods that prevent even the possibility of conception. > > Scream all you like about what a foolish view that is. You won’t hear a peep from me. > > But you may not characterize it as “sex between married couples for non-procreative purposes is bad.” Sex for non-procreative purposes is fine. Sex that involves an artificial barrier to conception is bad. The old rhythm method and the new method is as un natural as it can get! Trying to fool God by not having sex when one can get pregnant, is not good for the couple and their sexual lives. If that were true, then using tubes etc. to keep a person alive when God wanted them dead, would also be a factor. Not allowing the morning after pill when there may not even be a conception is (in my opinion ) just a way of controling a person, if that were allowed, not calling it abortion ,it would leave less women to think of abortion,and a fertile egg is no more a person than a sperm that contains human life as well. I have Catholic friends and relatives whose marriage was bad because they didn’t want as many children as they had. Some lived together nearly 50 years in unhappy marriages because of that! If God wanted to have a couple to be open to conception at any or all times, they had sex, then He could just as well interfere and have the condom or pill,etc, not work. The more babies the more Catholics? Look on this board alone and see how many are ex-Catholics. The RCC church has (in my view) a very unhealthy attitude about human sexuality. It may not want to admit it, but sex is a biological act not a religious one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/417 "2010-05-24T11:45:15Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Well **Bricker,** you’re a smart guy - you know that what is just as important as what’s said, is the way that it’s said. > > What if the Bishop guy had said something along the lines of “well although canon law automatically excommunicates in cases of abortion, should the facts prove that the mother was at imminient risk of her life, the Nun will be reinstated post haste”? > > Just the same as in you policeman case, if the Commisionier of police stressed that the “investigation” was an administrative matter and that he had every confidence that the officer in this case has behaved properly and within the bounds of his training? > > And please don’t come back citing some sort of sub-judice clap trap or an unwillingness to influence or pre-empt the findings. With 15 minutes thought, someone famililiar with Canon Law can come up with the appropriate wording for a opinion neutral statement that showed support for the nun. I have no idea what the bishop actually said. I know that expecting the media to quote him fully and accurately to convey such an impression, even if he said something along the lines of what you’re suggesting, is fuitile. And if nothing else, I know this from my own experience in 2004, when I was interviewed by NPR (on a Catholic issue, interestingly enough!) ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/418 "2010-05-24T12:12:39Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The RCC church has (in my view) a very unhealthy attitude about human sexuality. It may not want to admit it, but sex is a biological act not a religious one. Catholics don’t trust their God to be able to find a way around things like blowjobs, etc to get women pregnant even though Mary got herself knocked up without a dick being anywhere near her. Seems to me if God wanted you pregnant then there isn’t a damned thing that you can do to stop it. Unless he isn’t real and the church had to make sure their flock was large enough to fleeced on a regular basis, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/419 "2010-05-24T12:13:27Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The old rhythm method and the new method is as un natural as it can get! Trying to fool God by not having sex when one can get pregnant, is not good for the couple and their sexual lives. If that were true, then using tubes etc. to keep a person alive when God wanted them dead, would also be a factor. Not allowing the morning after pill when there may not even be a conception is (in my opinion ) just a way of controling a person, if that were allowed, not calling it abortion ,it would leave less women to think of abortion,and a fertile egg is no more a person than a sperm that contains human life as well. I have Catholic friends and relatives whose marriage was bad because they didn’t want as many children as they had. Some lived together nearly 50 years in unhappy marriages because of that! If God wanted to have a couple to be open to conception at any or all times, they had sex, then He could just as well interfere and have the condom or pill,etc, not work. The more babies the more Catholics? Look on this board alone and see how many are ex-Catholics. > > The RCC church has (in my view) a very unhealthy attitude about human sexuality. It may not want to admit it, but sex is a biological act not a religious one. As unnatural as surgery, of course, an what seems to be the problem? The word “natural”? I guess by “fertile egg” you mean “fertilised”. If that’s the case, you might want to go back to your biology books and go for “haploid”, “diploid” and the difference between a single-cell individual and a single cell from a multi-cell individual. Of course it’s biological, just like punching a person; it doesn’t mean it has no religious connotations. ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/420 "2010-05-24T12:23:44Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I’m not a lawyer - Buddhism has this thing about “right livelihood”, see. Hey, not all of us are bastards! I’m even a Buddhist, I guess. If I recall ethics class correctly, a lawyer has the obligation to report a definite and imminent threat. If a client details how they’re about to fly a plane into an IRS building, you have to report that. But if you know a client has really and truly molested children, you still can’t report that as a case of threat of harm, by itself. Of course, if they tell you about specific plans, that’s another thing. And most importantly - if you are in charge of hiring for your firm’s in-house daycare, you are perfectly OK to refuse to hire that person, and I would argue you have a moral duty not to hire him. It goes without saying that discovering someone molested children in your daycare, actively covering up evidence external to the attorney-client privilege, and moving the person to another branch of the firm where no one is aware of the danger is right out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=22)