# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/101 "2010-05-21T15:50:32Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > But if I need a textbook example of not seeing the forest for the trees, I’m going to look back to your first post in this thread. Remember the two main points in this thread? Yeah, your argument addresses neither of them. You knew that your point addressed neither of them. I disagree. > [@](#): > > Last November, a nun on the board of a Catholic hospital agreed to allow doctors to abort the 11-week fetus of a woman who would otherwise die (taking said fetus with her, by the way). Well, the Holy See jumped right on this situation and excommunicated her. It’s highly relevant to the OP, because the OP’s case makes it sound like the excommunication was a conscious decision: after weighing the facts and considering what she did, the Vatican decided to excommunicate her. But that’s not what happened, and the truth makes the second point the OP was making dramatically different. > [@](#): > > You’re being willfully obtuse in this thread, gleefully arguing against a point that doesn’t address any substantive argument made, and hiding behind the shield of “fighting ignorance.” Again I disagree. Yes, there are some people that choose to read into posts words that are not there. There are other people (Hi, **Duke**!) that choose not to read posts that are there. But of the two arguments made, one was _the church’s coverup up rapist pedophiles makes them scumbags_, and the second was _They won’t take the time to fix the pedophile problem, but they do spend time on excommunicating this nun._ And that second point simply isn’t true; no time was spent; it was an automatic process, and you yourself acknowledged that but for my posting here, you would not have known that. So, frankly, I’m happy with that result, as reviled as I no doubt will continue to be. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/102 "2010-05-21T15:51:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not true. > > Is it your contention that the Church is NOW, today, trying to cover up current acts of child molestation? > > I don’t agree. The Church has in place now, today, policies that I believe are appropriate for dealing with the issue. So how is what I’m doing today “helping to cover up child molestation?” See, now, that’s the problem. The church has been covering up these events. They’ve been lying to the world about whether the molestation was even happening. They’ve repeatedly blamed the victim, and transferred the molester to a new church where he can then face exactly the same temptations. _All we have is their word that they’re no longer allowing this._ And, frankly, their word isn’t worth anything at this point. They have a pattern of doing anything they can to protect the Church, even at the expense of innocence. Let me ask you- why do you believe them _now_? Edited to add: And another thing- if a private organization… say, ACORN… had allowed crimes to be committed in their name and then _covered up those crimes for years_- would you give them the benefit of the doubt when they said they weren’t going to let it happen anymore? Hell, at the _very least_, the Catholic church should turn over to the police those priests and every shred of evidence they’ve got on them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/103 "2010-05-21T15:52:30Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Right. Because we, as Westerners, are SO incredibly unfamiliar with the Christian faith, that we need **Bricker** , the eternal apologist, to explain things to us. > > :rolleyes: Well: > [@Enderw24](#): > > And I’ll have to admit that this is something I didn’t know. I’m really not up on Catholic doctrine. You’ve fought my ignorance and genuinely pointed out a factual inaccuracy in the OP. Kudos to you. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/104 "2010-05-21T15:53:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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, she was excommunicated. I assume as a Catholic she’d call that a great harm. ---
**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:** [May 21, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/105 "2010-05-21T15:54:09Z")
Abortion citation from the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I): > [@](#): > > 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of **every procured abortion**. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/106 "2010-05-21T15:54:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well: Not all of us, or even most of us, share **Ender** ’s ignorance on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/107 "2010-05-21T15:56:49Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > What does excommunication mean in this case? That the Sister can’t teach or go about her usual nunlike duties until she explains herself to her confessor? If she dies before she has a chance to explain herself, will she go to Hell, even though God knows this particular abortion was justified? She’s a hospital administrator, and she can certainly continue in her duties as hospital administrator until she speaks to her confessor. And, no, if she dies before she has a chance to explain herself, there is no particular relevance to this sanction, because it did not arise as an occasion of sin. But I’m sure I didn’t need to explain any of that to you. After all, > [@Ogre](#): > > Right. Because we, as Westerners, are SO incredibly unfamiliar with the Christian faith, that we need **Bricker** , the eternal apologist, to explain things to us. > > :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/108 "2010-05-21T15:59:24Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Not all of us, or even most of us, share **Ender** ’s ignorance on the matter. And even fewer see any relevance or importance to it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/109 "2010-05-21T16:03:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > IIRC, the official Church position is that two wrongs don’t make a right. You cannot murder one person to save the life of another–and they consider the termination of any pregnancy, even a single-celled zygote, to be murder. So, in the same way that if we are stranded on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean, I may not kill you and eat you in order to give myself more time to get to land, a woman may not abort a fetus that will kill her as it develops. > > Note: This is not reasoning I agree with. I’m just explaining how it works. > > Cite? It’s my understanding that abortion is never acceptable unless it’s the indirect result of another procedure. So, just an abortion is always wrong, regardless of whether or not the pregnancy would have killed the mother. However, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, you may remove the fallopian tube, even if that has the result of killing the fetus, because the removal of the tube was the intent of the procedure, not the termination of the pregnancy. > . > . > . > Again, I ask for a cite. That is directly contradictory to every understanding I have of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You may not be given absolution unless you genuinely repent of your sin. Saying you did it, you’re not sorry you did it, and you’d do it again would absolutely be grounds for a priest to refuse to absolve you. > . > . > . > AFAIK, you’re wrong. There are \*no \*circumstances where an abortion qua an abortion is allowable under Church law. I certainly don’t need to explain this, given **Ogre** ’s assurances of the existing depth of knowledge in this thread. I’m surprised you’d even ask. **Ogre** – please take care of explaining this one? Since you’re already so hip to it, and all. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/110 "2010-05-21T16:03:19Z")
I, for one, absolutely believe the Catholic Church is still covering up for child molestors and rapists and will continue to do so For. Ever. In their minds they are God’s gift to this Earth. They can never be wrong. They can say whatever they want but they have lost all of my trust, whatever they had, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone can still have faith and trust in them. Not in their God, but in _them_. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/111 "2010-05-21T16:05:17Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yeah, the poor, poor church. > > At this point, **Bricker** , the church _deserves_ to be bashed. Not Catholic individuals, but the institution itself. And I say this as a lapsed Catholic. If there is a hell, Ratzinger and co. will end up there. Same here. I don’t give a damn at this point what “their law” is, since: 1. It’s a weak ass excuse. 2. Makes the implied claim that man’s laws (yeah they are man made laws) are more important than doing what is right and protecting the weak etc (God’s law). So, fuck that excuse. On both fronts- the excommunication of that nun, and the systematic abuse and cover up of abuse that keeps cropping up over and over and over. Apparently The Law (such as it is), only has teeth when it suits the “right people”. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/112 "2010-05-21T16:11:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. > It’s highly relevant to the OP, because the OP’s case makes it sound like the excommunication was a conscious decision: after weighing the facts and considering what she did, the Vatican decided to excommunicate her. And I disagree with your disagreement. You may be right that Canon Law requires an automatic excommunication followed by an ability by the nun to explain herself and be brought back into the fold. May be right. I am, after all, merely accepting your authority on the matter given just your say so over that which was presented by the OP. But even assuming you’re correct, it doesn’t address the substance of the OP. You can try to make the argument that the OP wanted to know why the Church excommunicated her so quickly and, yes, your (later) posts addressed that. But the larger argument was the _comparisson_ between scenario 1 and scenario 2. And THAT argument can’t be explained by Canon Law. I mean, you try to make the point that Church doctrine requires automatic excommunication and so that’s why scenario 2 happened. But the natural followup question would be “and why doesn’t scenario 1 also have that same requirement?” to which the answer would be “it just doesn’t.” and the summation would be “why in the holy fucking hell would it not? What in the fuck is wrong with a set of rules with such a glaringly obvious hole, particularly when you compare it with what happens in scenario 2?” And your appeal to Canon Law does nothing to address this, which is the real substantive discussion of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/113 "2010-05-21T16:13:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I certainly don’t need to explain this, given **Ogre** ’s assurances of the existing depth of knowledge in this thread. I’m surprised you’d even ask. > > **Ogre** – please take care of explaining this one? Since you’re already so hip to it, and all. Well, primarily because I have no intention of ever engaging you in a discussion. You’re a pedantic know-it-all who isn’t a hundredth as interesting, superior, or knowledgeable as you think you are. You got nothin’, and I’m not about to “get up with fleas”. So bye! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/114 "2010-05-21T16:15:36Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > And I disagree with your disagreement. You may be right that Canon Law requires an automatic excommunication followed by an ability by the nun to explain herself and be brought back into the fold. May be right. I am, after all, merely accepting your authority on the matter given just your say so over that which was presented by the OP. Well, I have a licentiate in canon law, and I have quoted the particular canon law in question. I agree that the former assertion is simply more “accepting [my] authority,” but the latter is actual citation to authority, which neither the OP nor the article presented – and the article description of the excommunication is not inconsistent with my claims, in any event. > [@](#): > > But even assuming you’re correct, it doesn’t address the substance of the OP. You can try to make the argument that the OP wanted to know why the Church excommunicated her so quickly and, yes, your (later) posts addressed that. But the larger argument was the _comparisson_ between scenario 1 and scenario 2. And THAT argument can’t be explained by Canon Law. > I mean, you try to make the point that Church doctrine requires automatic excommunication and so that’s why scenario 2 happened. But the natural followup question would be “and why doesn’t scenario 1 also have that same requirement?” to which the answer would be “it just doesn’t.” and the summation would be “why in the holy fucking hell would it not? What in the fuck is wrong with a set of rules with such a glaringly obvious hole, particularly when you compare it with what happens in scenario 2?” > And your appeal to Canon Law does nothing to address this, which is the real substantive discussion of the OP. Yes. Which is why I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that canon law should impose a similar penalty for pedophile clerics who abuse. I don’t disagree with that point at all. In fact, I think canon law should go farther, and impose an automatic loss of the clerical state for a first offense. It’s completely inconsistent to treat one crime so severely and fail to punish the other. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/115 "2010-05-21T16:18:05Z")
Cite that “canon law” constitutes an “authority”? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/116 "2010-05-21T16:20:17Z")
**Bricker** , the church is less complicated than criminal law. If a cop shoots someone, there needs to be an automatic investigation to determine if that shooting was correct. The police who did the shooting are accountable and the legislators who wrote the laws are accountable. It would be a nightmare scenario if the first assumption was that whenever a policeman shoots someone, it’s justified, and let the victim’s family file suit to uncover any wrongdoing. The point is, these are men following men’s law, and we are capable of mistakes. The best way to make things fair and transparent is to investigate everything. On the other hand, the Pope and his cadre of eunuchs think themselves accountable to none but themselves. They think they are following god’s law, and they are the only ones able to interpret and enforce it. It would be as if the police had no accountability except to their Chief of Police, and the Chief decided what was ok and what was not. The nun who saved a life deserved not excommunication. In fact, the whole investigation should have come down to this: “Did you abort to save the mother’s life, and had the abortion not happened would both mother and child have died?” “Yes it was to save the mother’s life and yes, both would have died” “Case closed!” The church is not complicated. They make their own laws and decide their own fate. Excommunication for this nun is a farce. Their investigation need not go further than testing the faith of people they demand it from. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/117 "2010-05-21T16:20:29Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Well, primarily because I have no intention of ever engaging you in a discussion. You’re a pedantic know-it-all who isn’t a hundredth as interesting, superior, or knowledgeable as you think you are. > > You got nothin’, and I’m not about to “get up with fleas”. > > So bye! What do you mean?? I’m not asking you to engage me in a discussion at all. I’m, asking you to explain to **Shot From Guns** , here, who, unlike most of the other posters in this thread apparently is unfamiliar with the topic. You criticized me for attempting to explain things, and so I’m bowing out – I’m asking you to generously give of your knowledge to settle the issue. After all, I don’t want to get yelled at any more for being a know-it-all. But there remains this unanswered, factual question. And you have already explained that you’re well aware of the issues at hand. Why on earth would you refuse to answer? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/118 "2010-05-21T16:21:34Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > What in the fuck is wrong with a set of rules with such a glaringly obvious hole, particularly when you compare it with what happens in scenario 2?" So, you are asking why a process that would take about a minute to copy over ‘abortion’ with ‘pedophilia’ isn’t done? Because they actually like diddling choir boys and don’t want to outlaw it in their clubs bylaws. Really, what other reason could there possibly be? ---
**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:** [May 21, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/119 "2010-05-21T16:22:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I certainly don’t need to explain this, given **Ogre** ’s assurances of the existing depth of knowledge in this thread. I’m surprised you’d even ask. So, may I take this as an “I got nothin’, so I’m just gonna be a smartass”? Because that’s what I’m reading it as. Oh, and FWIW, my cite is being raised Catholic, attending a Catholic gradeschool K-8, attending a Catholic high school, and attending a Jesuit university, while studying Catholic doctrine at all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182/120 "2010-05-21T16:22:33Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The nun who saved a life deserved not excommunication. In fact, the whole investigation should have come down to this: > > “Did you abort to save the mother’s life, and had the abortion not happened would both mother and child have died?” > > “Yes it was to save the mother’s life and yes, both would have died” > > “Case closed!” And I’m telling you that the actual “investigation” would amount to almost exactly that. So what’s the problem? P.S. **Ogre** , also an authority on canon law, agrees with me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-motherfucking-pope/540182.md?page=7)