Then I take it killing in self defense is also out, but if that is the case how do they justify a just war.
I asked you? I don’t think so. We don’t want your answer, we want the RCC records opened up and examined. If all were promptly turned in to the police or DA over the past 30 or so years where there was a accusation or charge or an admission or a suspicion, then that is a defense. The law required that suspected child molesters be reported per child endangerment laws. The only exceptions under the law that would apply would be confessions that were privileged to clergy, counsel or doctors. And even then, when an action taken on privileged information raised suspicions in others, reporting duties adhere to those outside the privilege, there is no catching privilege cooties.
Your argument amounts to the public doesn’t know of any further incidents, therefore, there are none, and no need for an investigation. Nonsense, all unprivileged records are subject to production to an investigating authority requesting them. A message board poster does not get the same benefit that say Bernard Cardinal Law would receive if he testified before a grand jury that no other records existed, rather than flee the country to avoid exactly that.
Bernard Cardinal Law isn’t Roman Polanski, molesting children himself, he merely fled the reach of US law to avoid uncovering the extent the RCC covered up child fucking.
No, once they hit puberty and are no longer so attractive, you can kill 'em.
Well the Catholic church heirarchy can officially go fuck itself. Santimonious shitheads the lot of them.
Just a question – what is the Church’s position on shooting someone in self-defense?
So women are expected to abdicate the right to self defense once they become pregnant? How profoundly, disgustingly sexist!
Of course it is. And then we can all wring our hands and speak of her “offering herself up” and grieve her death while glorying in her sacrifice, and other lovely, useless, misogynistic rituals that the Catholic Church revels in. Hell, this is a church that would rather a girl dies than survive a rape. (see Italy, girl, rape, death, virginity): Saint MariaGoretti
And now let’s talk about symphiotomies in Ireland (about half way down the page). Those celibate old men really know their shit, no?
No C-section for you, woman! It might give you Ideas. But let’s make you incontinent, in constant pain and essentially crippled, all for the idolatry of Life.
I think for people like Bricker, being Catholic is much more than canon or even doctrine. It’s a culture; a way of life; a method of identity. And since they can’t separate themselves from “being Catholic”, every attack, justified or not (and I think we can all agree that decrying child rape, systematic molestation and preferring the death of the mother to the death of the child-or the death of both over the life of the mother is the decent thing to do), they must defend the indefensible. It helps, of course, that he’s an attorney. The pedantry, picayune bickering and blinders to the obvious are necessary tools in his trade. Abide with him; it’s all he knows.
Actually, phrased this way, i’m not so sure I agree. We just shift the active part back a bit; rather than there being an active charge of Catholic priests to go out and excommunicate, instead, there was at one point in history apparently a time when this particular piece of Canon law was written in which Catholic priests actively decided to include an automatic excommunication, and did not choose to add a similar note for cases of child abuse. They didn’t take the time to fix the pedophile problem, and they did spend time on excommunicating this nun (in general); it just wasn’t now.
Thanks for the answer to my question a while back, though.
That’s pretty fucked up right there. In “my perfect little world”, she would have blown the sumbitch’s head off.
God, my family’s Catholic, and they aren’t that hardcore! (Mom had her tubes tied, for example)
This is untrue.
The law mandating reporting is relatively recent – not thirty years old.
So who in there is accused but not defrocked?
Your link mentions:
defrocked priest John Geoghan – yes, he’s defrocked
Father Oliver O’Grady – defrocked
Who else?
Um…
Uh…
Yeah, good point.
Knda stupid to wander into this thread and complain about that.
Yet by 1967 all 50 states had such laws. The last time I checked, 43 years is less recent than 30 years. Unless I’m not using canonical counting. Go on, ask me for a cite. Your conservative catholic hispanic government employee google fu is no match for my liberal protestant private enterprise middle aged white guy google-fu!
And dog people don’t tend to have any more than average disdain for felines! 
Hoenstly, I don’t understand the OP. Yes, sure the church is a league of pedoophiles and enablers, but IMO this woman is lucky to be out of it. She may not understand it now, but the church did her a favor by excommunicating her.
I think what can be said is the Roman Cocksuckers Cabal’s own history on the subject is instructive enough.
How about good ol’ Lawrence Murphy. But we have to give Ratzy his credit here – even if he doesn’t give a shit about women, children, gays, or Africans, at least he does know how to show compassion to old men who like to rape deaf boys!
The point of what Bricker is saying is that having an abortion automatically excommunicates you, although this is rarely taken that seriously. My understanding is that you go to priest, say I had an abortion, the priest says say 7 hail marys or something like that, and you’re perfectly fine.
In other words, it’s no worse than any other sin, despite the intimidating name.
If you want to argue that the church should not consider abortion a sin, I’ll agree, but, right now, I think it has a more urgent issue to deal with, first. Get rid of the pedos, and get that law fixed, and then we can work on getting abortion fixed, too.
Well, to be fair to Bricker, he never argued that every child molester known to the Church was defrocked. His argument has been that, under the current Church policies (instituted fairly recently), all credible accusation lead to defrocking. I don’t know if that’s actually true or not, but the guy you referred to died in 1998, before the revised policies took effect.
However, Bricker, the story linked by akennett reinforces the point i was making earlier. No matter what the new policies are, and no matter how well they are enforced from this point on, the continued presence in the Church, at the very highest levels (including Pope), of people who were complicit in the cover-ups and the immoral behavior, means that the Church itself is still guilty, as an institution.
When something this bad happens, and people in positions of authority are involved, you don’t just get to change the policy and leave those people in place, and expect that no-one will notice, and that no-one will care. I’m not talking here about priests or other members of the church who couldn’t be expected to know what was going on; i’m talking about people who were charged with overseeing the very branches of the Church that dealt with these sorts of issues.
If a loan officer in a bank oversees unethical or fraudulent behavior, it is not acceptable for the bank to kick him upstairs to Vice President or CEO and tell the world that its new loan officer will do things right from now on. nor should that be the case here. The Church constantly presents itself as an institution that is organic and interconnected, and that holds to principles that are (or should be) universal. As long as Ratzinger and others who were complicit in this crime remain in the Church, it remains guilty, no matter how much its policies and practices have changed.