Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

[mhendo]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Better to attack the bad Catholics then go after all Catholics in some kind of ironic witch hunt.

This is one of those times when knowing the difference between “then” and “than” would help your argument. Because the error completely reverses what i assume was your intended meaning.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@mhendo

This is one of those times when knowing the difference between “then” and “than” would help your argument. Because the error completely reverses what i assume was your intended meaning.

Oops. Indeed.

[Icerigger]

Some more fuel on the fire.

But the position of the church is actually born from humility, from daring to believe that God knows what he is doing. The church is not blind; she sees with eyes that are not fixated on the corporeal. Her perceived narrowness of perspective is actually so broad, it reaches into mystery. Far from being unnatural, she remains supernatural. She dares to trust that God’s plans really are “of fullness, not of harm.”

Although details are scarce, we are told there was an “urgency” to this 11-week pregnancy, and that there was a “nearly certain” risk of death to the mother. “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the hospital told The Arizona Republic. “We are convinced there was not.”

The adverb is the bugaboo. A “nearly certain, risk” is where reason, faith and ethics collide. Man trusts what man knows (in this case science and human flesh) and because he likes that illusion of control, he ignores the qualifier and calls the risk “certain.” It is easier to move on a pure certainty than on a “near” one that muddles everything up.

Dwelling in the Possibilities of a “Win-Win” | Elizabeth Scalia

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

Any educational administrator or counselor has been obliged to report child molestation since the 1960s. The local diocese and it’s personnel are both. While new laws specifically include all clergy, clergy was not a special exception previously if it held dual roles.

Now, you’ll ned to cite this claim.

[vivalostwages]

@Bricker

Now, you’ll ned to cite this claim.

Child abuse reporting by school counselors. - Free Online Library

[ElvisL1ves]

You do realize “The civil law may not have absolutely required it at the time, therefore not guilty!” is not exactly the strongest argument in your client’s favor in THIS court, don’t you?

[ivan_astikov]

You know why the authorities aren’t coming down hard on the Pope and his cronies, don’t you?

They know the names of all the politicians and other movers and shakers who are child abusers

[elbows]

Do share ivan how, exactly they know all the politicians and other mover and shakers who are child abusers? Do they have a Child Abusers Crystal ball somewhere in the Vatican? Or are they into special ops?

[ivan_astikov]

@elbows

Do share ivan how, exactly they know all the politicians and other mover and shakers who are child abusers? Do they have a Child Abusers Crystal ball somewhere in the Vatican? Or are they into special ops?

Hey, I’ve seen The DaVinci Code. They’ve got special undercover monks.

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

Any educational administrator or counselor has been obliged to report child molestation since the 1960s. The local diocese and it’s personnel are both. While new laws specifically include all clergy, clergy was not a special exception previously if it held dual roles.

@Bricker

Now, you’ll ned to cite this claim.

@vivalostwages

Child abuse reporting by school counselors. - Free Online Library

Perhaps you could quote the portion of text at that link that supports this claim. I saw general statements about state laws, and a detailed analysis of one midwestern state; I saw nothing about Massachusetts law and nothing about the proposition that holding dual roles provided no exception before the new law passed in Massachusetts.

[Denis]

Bricker, is there some requirement for it to be enshrined in lawbooks for people to act decently? It’s a simple yes or no question, no cite required. My answer is an emphatic “No, I don’t think a legal requirement is necessary to behave in a decent manner.”

[wonky]

@Bricker

Perhaps you could quote the portion of text at that link that supports this claim. I saw general statements about state laws, and a detailed analysis of one midwestern state; I saw nothing about Massachusetts law and nothing about the proposition that holding dual roles provided no exception before the new law passed in Massachusetts.

Wouldn’t holding dual roles being an exception have to be what’s spelled out? “Hey, they didn’t say there’s no exception if I’m a counselor and juggler, therefore it doesn’t apply to me!”

[Denis]

@Denis

Bricker, is there some requirement for it to be enshrined in lawbooks for people to act decently? It’s a simple yes or no question, no cite required. My answer is an emphatic “No, I don’t think a legal requirement is necessary to behave in a decent manner.”

(Sorry, missed the edit window) What’s your answer?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

Bricker are you actually claiming the Catholic Church wasn’t being evil cunts by protecting pedophiles, and intimidating their victims because of some legal technicality?

[Mighty_Girl]

@mhendo

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.

"Your honor, my client does not dispute the accusation that in 1992 he murdered his wife, Ms. Smith; neither does he dispute the allegation that he lied to the police about Ms. Smith’s whereabouts when interviewed by the police in 2002. My client accepts that he repeatedly moved Ms. Smith body to avoid detection.

However, I request that all charges be dismissed on the basis that my client is not a danger to society anymore. He swears, cross his heart, that he will not murder Ms. Smith again.*"
*Not an actual legal argument.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Bricker

Now, you’ll ned to cite this claim.

Ned as in Ned Flanders is my cite. There was no exception for clergy when the laws were initially passed, but they specifically applied to people with school administration and guidance duties, which is everyone all the way up the chain of command to the archbishop. If you know of a written exception or law saying otherwise, you are welcome to make a citation, but there isn’t one. It applied. That was why Bernard Law fled the jurisdiction.

It’s been the law since the 60s in all 50 states. If you want to focus on just Mass, that is your prerogative. The thread is pitting how quickly the RCC can move and how draconian it can be in its swiftness and automatic application when it wants to, compared to how it is still deliberately dragging its feet here. The membership of the church deserves better. They have some ‘splainin’ to do. The hierarchy here has behaved in a way that would disgust prison gangs.

[Polycarp]

@ivan_astikov

Hey, I’ve seen The DaVinci Code. They’ve got special undercover monks.

Yeah, but the altar boys complain that they’re always hogging all the covers.

[Unauthorized_Cinnamon]

You know what I really like? How the church says, “Oh, the doctors say it was as near 100% certainty as can possibly be that the mother would have died without an abortion. But that means there was a possibility she would have survived, so we weren’t actually being evil.”

Why doesn’t that retarded argument work the other way? “Oh, the doctors say it’s as near 100% certainty as can possibly be that an 11-week old fetus can’t survive outside the womb. But that means there was a possibility it could have survived, so the main purpose of the procedure was just to remove it, and if it died that was an unintended consequence and therefore OK by church law.”

My answer: the church hates women.

[The_Second_Stone]

Here is a google timeline on Mass law on child abuse reporting history of massachusetts child abuse reporting laws - Google Search

[Zsofia]

Are you honestly serious, Bricker? Are you really arguing that there’s no moral issue because it wasn’t a law that you were supposed to do something about it if you knew somebody was raping children? That you aren’t a bad person if the law didn’t demand that you report? Seriously?