# 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:** 44
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/861 "2010-06-03T19:14:15Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > My bad. Just timing sex to her cycle, then. Takes a little steam out of your “LET’S BE ACCURATE!” rant, though. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/862 "2010-06-03T19:26:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me spell it out for you, then: I have no further interest in getting called vile names and accused of approving of vile acts. If someone has a factual question they wish answered, we have a forum for that, and I’m happy to supply whatever knowledge I have in the service of answering that factual question. Maybe I should make myself clearer: when I said > [@RTFirefly](#): > > And I don’t want to hear from **Bricker** about how the means of defrocking a cardinal are convoluted (or nonexistent) and blah blah blah. > > What I want to hear from **Bricker** , if anything, is why Joey can’t excommunicate Hoyos unless and until Hoyos voluntarily withdraws from holy orders and ceases accepting any remuneration or support from the RCCC. , I meant that unless there’s a pretty damned good explanation for why Joey the Rat (or someone speaking on his behalf) can’t announce that Hoyos’ failure to withdraw from the RCCC clergy means that he’s excommunicated, then I can’t see how this isn’t directly comparable to the excommunicated nun instance that was in the OP. And if it’s directly comparable, then the only remaining argument I see is that aborting a fetus to save the mother is somehow morally worse than raping children. If you insist on a whole new thread in another forum just to answer that question - well, you’re not answering that question as a favor to me. If you were to answer the question, it would be in order to continue to try to make the argument that there’s some underlying moral basis for the RCCC’s doing one thing one way, and the other thing another way. If you don’t answer the question, then I guess you don’t want to make that argument anymore. I was wondering if you had a better argument in favor of the RCCC than I could envision, but I expect you don’t. I’m not terribly surprised. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/863 "2010-06-03T19:31:37Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > No. The withdrawal method isn’t allowed by the RCC. Which seems to go against the principle **Bricker** stated - that the key thing is to have sex in a way that allows for the possibility of conception. Withdrawal certainly qualifies. I’m beginning to think that the RCCC simply doesn’t like the idea that people might substantially reduce the odds of getting pregnant from genital intercourse. The closer one looks into any of this stuff, the harder it is to see a principle. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/864 "2010-06-03T19:45:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Takes a little steam out of your “LET’S BE ACCURATE!” rant, though. Since I accepted the correction instead of insisting I was right even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, I’d say not. 😃 I also think I still have a valid point about their equivocation, since you can use NFP and/or have sex at other infertile times (pregnancy, menopause). ---
**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:** [June 3, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/865 "2010-06-03T19:46:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me spell it out for you, then: I have no further interest in getting called vile names and accused of approving of vile acts. If someone has a factual question they wish answered, we have a forum for that, and I’m happy to supply whatever knowledge I have in the service of answering that factual question. I’ve asked you several questions, without calling you any names, vile or otherwise, or accusing you of anything, though I did express my misgivings that an argument against “partial birth” abortions would be used to justify pointless additional restrictions, so I offered my “no elective abortions in third trimester” compromise. > [@](#): > > Answering that factual question here is simply an invitation for more abuse to be heaped on me, and I’m tired of it. This thread is intended to be a vehicle to attack catholics and the Catholic Church, and a poster offering up information or evidence that does NOT serve that goal is attacked with all the fury of a rabid pit bull. Well, there may be some anti-Catholic bigotry going on (some from disgruntled former Catholics), but overall I gather this is a spirited discussion of RCC policies and the effects of those policies. Heck, I didn’t rant at claims that _current_ RCC policies official put and end to pedophile cover-ups. I just said it would take a decade or more for the RCC to prove to my satisfaction that they were serious about it. I suggest this isn’t some RCC-specific standard of mine I made up out of anti-RCC bias. If a drug addict wanted to convince me he was clean, or a criminal wanted to convince me he’d gone straight, a similar and lengthy probationary period would be needed. I’m not about to just take their _word_ for it. > [@](#): > > So I’m going to decline your unkind invitation to slobber more rabid saliva my way. Well, you’ve still got mine, and it’s not that unkind and relatively slobber-free. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/866 "2010-06-03T19:50:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’ve asked you several questions, without calling you any names, vile or otherwise, or accusing you of anything, though I did express my misgivings that an argument against “partial birth” abortions would be used to justify pointless additional restrictions, so I offered my “no elective abortions in third trimester” compromise. True. But other folks keep reading my responses and replying to them. I’ll have this conversation in GD, or answer questions in GQ. For those that have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, you can surely deliver the death-blows of logic in GD. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/867 "2010-06-03T20:17:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But other folks keep reading my responses and replying to them. If you want a _private_ conversation, trying PMing or email. ---
**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:** [June 3, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/868 "2010-06-03T20:57:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But other folks keep reading my responses and replying to them. Damn their oily hides! > [@](#): > > I’ll have this conversation in GD, or answer questions in GQ. For those that have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, you can surely deliver the death-blows of logic in GD. I dunno - seems to me another pointless step taken for the sake of form when simpler solutions are at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/869 "2010-06-03T21:39:34Z")
Oh noes, people can call your religious institution on its stunningly disgusting bullshit! However will you survive?! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/870 "2010-06-03T21:45:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > seems to me another pointless step You misspelled “evasive”. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/871 "2010-06-04T10:06:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But other folks keep reading my responses and replying to them. Awwwww, poor _bay_-bee! > [@](#): > > I’ll have this conversation in GD, or answer questions in GQ. For those that have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, you can surely deliver the death-blows of logic in GD. Y’know, this has to be the most pompous, self-centered thing I’ve seen you write, **Bricker**. Like it’s worth it to any of us to open up a whole new thread in a different forum just to see if you actually have a tenable rebuttal to this one point in a long thread. No, it doesn’t all revolve around you. We don’t give a flying fuck. Rebut, or leave the field, as you choose. Or even stick around and talk about how you would rebut here, if only we weren’t such a bunch of meanies, but how you might or might not have a rebuttal worth reading if only we’ll break down and start another thread elsewhere. If you really feel like publishing a rebuttal in another forum, go for it. Start your own thread, if it matters to you. But that’s up to you. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to defend their ideas here. You can if you want. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/872 "2010-06-04T10:43:15Z")
See - this is what we mean by the RCC STILL not getting the picture. [Pope appoints panel to investigate Ireland child sex abuse](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Pope-appoints-panel-to-investigate-Ireland-child-sex-abuse/articleshow/5995108.cms) Not ‘The Catholic Church’ but the Irish Catholic Church as if the problem is confined to that. Besides - as one of the co-conspirators in the cover-up he should be indicting himself. [Pope led cover-up](http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do) > [@](#): > > The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight. > > In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety. > > > [@](#): > > > > The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated. > > Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times. > > Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome. > > Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: “I found out I wasn’t working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself.” > > And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church’s handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. This is an unrepentant Pope and an unrepentant institution. And I remain supremely uninterested in RCC mumbo-jumbo handwaving. Meanwhile, between shedding crocodile tears, here’s another Joey The Rat gem. [Petty Gossip](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/pope-condemns-critics-catholic-sexual-abuse) > [@](#): > > Pope Benedict today risked inflaming opinion as he appeared to round on critics of the Catholic church over the widening sexual abuse scandal, saying he would not “be intimidated by … petty gossip”. > > The 82-year-old pontiff led tens of thousands of people in a Palm Sunday service in St Peter’s square. He did not mention the scandal engulfing the church directly, but parts of his sermon alluded to it. > > The pope said that faith in God helped lead one “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion”. > > \ > > In the face of one of the gravest scandals in the Catholic church’s recent history, the Vatican has chosen to attack the media for what it called an “ignoble attempt” to smear Pope Benedict and his top advisers “at any cost”. Still not getting it are you Rat-Face? Child abuse is embedded in the RCC and the RCC, in the form of the current Pope, actively sought to conceal it. Until it is accepted that the Vatican and the current Pope actively put the RCC reputation ahead of not frigging abusing children and takes severe steps to punish those responsible - including King Rat - then the RCC should and will keep getting beat upon. And so will their enablers and apologists. ---
**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:** [June 4, 2010, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/873 "2010-06-04T11:00:22Z")
What’s Latin for “independent prosecutor”? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/874 "2010-06-04T11:02:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What’s Latin for “independent prosecutor”? In this hive of scum and villainy? It seems to be ‘Pontifex’. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/875 "2010-06-04T12:18:14Z")
Catholic bashing? Here is a question for you, **Bricker** : If you shoot yourself in the foot, who is the assailant-you, or the person who tries to take the gun away from you? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/876 "2010-06-04T12:33:42Z")
Oh yeah: if the RCCC wants to come clean, maybe it should authorize bishops to take the Rat’s 2001 update of _Crimen Sollicitationis_ out of their safes and share it with the press. If it says what it’s alleged to say, then there’s no defense. And it’s pretty much impossible to imagine a rationale - other than criminal conspiracy, of course - for keeping secret the RCCC’s _policy_ on responding to instances of child abuse. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/877 "2010-06-04T15:04:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Oh yeah: if the RCCC wants to come clean … I can see where you went wrong. 🙂 The RCC is like a sledge full of passengers fleeing wolves. Irish Church, German Church, American Church, individual bishops … one by one they will be thrown to the wolves in the interest of ‘The Greater Good’. I’m sure once Bricker has finished flicking through his copies of The Big Blue Book of Mumbo-Jumbo and Pedantry Made Simple he’ll be here with a stunning rebuttal. And by ‘stunning rebuttal’ I mean ‘transparent hand-waving’. Or maybe another weak hand of ‘Playing the Victim’ cards. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/878 "2010-06-04T15:18:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Oh yeah: if the RCCC wants to come clean, maybe it should authorize bishops to take the Rat’s 2001 update of _Crimen Sollicitationis_ out of their safes and share it with the press. > > If it says what it’s alleged to say, then there’s no defense. And it’s pretty much impossible to imagine a rationale - other than criminal conspiracy, of course - for keeping secret the RCCC’s _policy_ on responding to instances of child abuse. [Ask and ye shall receive](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/text-of-letter-showing-rc-child-abuse-subject-to-the-pontifical-secret.html) [Commentary here](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/feeling-a-bit-sorry-for-the-irish-bishops.html) > [@](#): > > Here is a translation of the relevant third section: > > 1. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10) > > A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years. > > Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. > > As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party’s legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation. > > It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age. > In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. > > All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely. > > Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret. > > Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions. > > Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001. > Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger > Prefect > Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB Secretary > [@](#): > > 'It would follow from this that not only are the allegations of victims, but also the admissions by priests of having sexually abused children were subject to “the pontifical secret”. It seems fairly clear from what Fr. Sean McDonagh said in his letter to the Irish Times that this was understod by the clergy that it precluded those to whom such allegations were reported from going to the police with the evidence. That is an understandable inference from the letter. > > 'Now in fairness to the Pope, one could say that this was all just a misunderstanding, but it is very difficult for him to say that. > > 'Firstly it seems to have been the very widespread, if not universal practice not to bring these matters to the attention of the police. Even in Australia, one bishop refused to hand over his files to the police on particular allegations of sex abuse and only did so once a search warrant was issued against him. He resigned soon afterwards. I should add that this happened before the May 2001 letter, not subsequently. > > \*\*'Second, since all such matters had to be reported to Ratzinger since 2001, where are the letters back from Ratzinger to the respective bishops ordering them to give the information to the police? > > 'I stand to be corrected again, but has anyone seen any evidence of such directions from the Vatican?\*\* Anyone? Bueller? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/879 "2010-06-04T15:29:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m beginning to think that the RCCC simply doesn’t like the idea that people might substantially reduce the odds of getting pregnant from genital intercourse. The closer one looks into any of this stuff, the harder it is to see a principle. Well, I think the principle is that people shouldn’t be having sex unless they want to get pregnant/impregnate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/880 "2010-06-04T16:58:43Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > [Ask and ye shall receive](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/text-of-letter-showing-rc-child-abuse-subject-to-the-pontifical-secret.html) > > [Commentary here](http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/feeling-a-bit-sorry-for-the-irish-bishops.html) > > Anyone? Bueller? I suspect \*\*Bricker \*\*himself finally sees, based on his lack of substantive response lately. That’s Exhibit A in the indictment for criminal conspiracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=45)