Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

it’s clear you’re open-minded and willing to listen to reasoned argument here, so let me offer you an analogy:

A county has a practice of bringing every killing in front of a grand jury. That is, if you kill someone, the grand jury must look at the facts and decide if you committed murder.

Now, this is obviously a good rule when you’re dealing with murders, and it even makes sense when the case appears to be self-defense. By this inflexible rule, the public can have a degree of self-assuredness that there’s an independent review of the death, and whatever claim of self-defense that’s made is a good one, not a thinly-veiled excuse for murder.

That’s all that’s happening here. Because the vast majority of abortions are not permissible, the church’s law imposes an automatic penalty on anyone who assists at one. But because there are circumstances, like this one, where abortion is permissible under church law, there is a process to remove that automatic penalty.

Does the self-defense killer “beg forgiveness” from the grand jury?

No. He tells the grand jury the facts, and they return a “no true bill,” clearing him.

Does the nun here beg for forgiveness? No. She tells her confessor the facts, and since they do not establish any sinful action on her part, the automatic excommunication is lifted.

Bricker, I think this is a terrible analogy.

(My apologies if someone’s brought up the argument I’m about to make already - but I read the rest of the page on which you made this analogy, and the next page too, and don’t see that anyone did. But it could have happened on p.4 or later; I’m still plodding through the thread.)

Mind you, it’s based on my understanding of the spiritual meaning of ‘excommunication’ which may or may not be correct, but I’m open to having my ignorance lifted on that subject if I’m misunderstanding.

From Wikipedia:

In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out - hence the idiom “to condemn with bell, book and candle.” Such ceremonies are rarely, if ever, held today, but exactly the same principles apply. Only in cases where a person’s excommunicable offense is very public and likely to confuse people is a person’s excommunicated status even announced, and that usually by a simple statement from a Church official.

Excommunication, as I understand it, is the most serious sanction the Church can apply (yeah, I know it’s automatic, but it’s still doing the application) to any of its followers.

The excommunication of a Catholic is the closing of the door (by the descendants of St. Peter, to whom the keys to that door were given) to redemption that Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection opened up. This lasts for the duration of the excommunication. That person is spiritually dead - whether temporarily or permanently, they are officially among the ranks of the unsaved.

Do I have that right?

If so, then excommunication is hardly analogous to a grand jury proceeding, where the person under investigation is not even officially accused, let alone found guilty - while excommunication is the full separation from Christ and salvation that comes with unrepentant guilt of a serious sin.

Which brings up the question: if excommunication is an automatic consequence of certain acts, does that mean that, according to the RCCC*, the nun herself committed an great sin that, at least temporarily, put her among the unsaved? Or does it mean that, whether or not her act was sinful, she’s unsaved anyway?

And the Wikipedia quote brings up another question: if it is accurate with respect to when and why the RCCC announces excommunications, why exactly did a high official in the RCCC feel the need to announce this particular excommunication, especially if there’s a strong possibility that the nun in question may have done nothing wrong? If her involvement in an abortion excommunicated her, and good Catholics are surely aware of this, then what is the purpose of the announcement other than to make an example of her?

*Roman Catholic Criminal Conspiracy (a mob headed by the notorious gangster Joey the Rat)

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

You also conflate the issue of child abuse and molestation, a gravely serious problem but one practiced by – what - one hundredth of one percent of the church body? Make a more generous estimate, and also add in the hierarchy who didn’t do it, but acted to protect the Church instead of the victims, and maybe you get to one tenth of a percent.

Who cares what percentage of the body of Catholics did X? This has to be one of the most repugnant things you’ve ever posted, Bricker.

“It’s not that bad that we had sexually abusive priests, because they represent a small part of the total number of Catholics.”

What percentage of priests abused minors? What percentage of bishops and higher-ups covered up their trail, or knew about and condoned the covering-up being done by other members of the hierarchy?

What percentage of Popes, since the lid blew off this scandal back in 2002, has yet to condemn the bishops (and up) who did the covering-up, and who has yet to defrock or excommunicate a single bishop for participating in that covering-up?

As far as I can tell, that last percentage is 100.

If this were Watergate, the Pope would still be saying it was all about the seven burglars who broke into the DNC office.

[wonky]

I think I want to ask a different question.

We know that the RCC has said they are making/have made/will make changes. We know there has been some small amount of admission of wrongdoing.

Has there been any information volunteered about incidents? Has it all been external sourcing forcing the issue, or has the RCC said, “Not only did X happen that y’all know about, but Y happened, too. You didn’t know it but we did and we vow it won’t happen again.”

Anything like that? Anything akin to the RCC attending confession and talking about stuff we didn’t already know?

Because that would be a sign that there was understanding about the wrongness of the actions instead of just the wrongness of getting caught.

[SteveG1]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

“Cafeteria Catholic” is about on the same level as that “you’re either with us or against us” crap. It’s god damn scorched earth bullshit. Better to attack the bad Catholics then go after all Catholics in some kind of ironic witch hunt.

I’ve heard various versions of that “cafeteria” phrase over the years, and it boils down to an argument for believing and obeying in a mindless and slave like way. I don’t buy the idea that the Church has, or ever will, come around on abortion or birth controil. or much of anything. I don’t believe for even a second, that they would ever directly deal with all the abuse scandals (other than covering it up), unless the civil law and news forced them, and they will continue to be too FUCKING stupid and arrogant to actually, you know, DO something about it - other than to attack the accusers and detractors. History itself and recent news stories seem to bear this out.

Likewise, I’ve heard the “are ya with us or agin’ us” nonsense. It is one of the surest ways to make me go against you. I choose, not you. The with us or against us, is a poorly veiled threat. I don’t “do well” with threats.

As to any argument that civil law or church law didn’t address abuse of covering up of abuse years ago, all I can say is so what. It was still wrong even back then.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Would you make the same argument about a lawyer?

@kaylasdad99

No, because the constitution provides protections against self-incrimination, as well as providing a right to counsel.

I don’t see how society benefits by having the law respect the seal of the confessional.

The constitution doesn’t explicitly provide for a privilege for atoorney-client conversations: you’re inferring it from the two rights you mention.

But the constitution also provides for a separation of church and state, and the argument is that giving church the freedom to permit safe, undisclosed communication between a minister and his penitent also serves society.

Many people, especially those generally hostile to religion as a whole, will reject this premise. But you can hardly argue that society does not wholeheartedly embrace it. In fact, the privilege goes further than that extended to lawyers; a lawyer is not bound to respect the privilege concerning revelation of a future crime.

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

Could you quote the text of the other 49 states? The fact of the matter is that you are relying on a non-specified exception to the law in one and only one state, when the obligation to report child abuse existed since the 60s. First you said it was only a few years old. When that was demonstrated as incorrect, you decided on only Massachusetts.

Actually, your retelling is a bit self-serving. I was not the one that brought up all fifty states had these laws; I was always thinking of Massachusetts when I said the relevant law was only a few years old, because Massachusetts was home to a large scandal and because some time back, we had a thread about whether Cardinal Law had broken any laws, and in participating in that thread I had occasion to gain some familiarity with Massachusetts law.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Who cares what percentage of the body of Catholics did X? This has to be one of the most repugnant things you’ve ever posted, Bricker.

Yes, in my long list of repugnancy, right?

What percentage of priests abused minors?

Roughly the same percentage of swim coaches, rabbis, and Little League coaches that abused youths under their care.

What percentage of bishops and higher-ups covered up their trail, or knew about and condoned the covering-up being done by other members of the hierarchy?

During what time period?

I ask this because there was a time when it was somewhat widely accepted that therapy could cure offenders.

Why don’t you rail against judges that sentenced child molestors to therapy in the seventies, and then had those offenders go on to offend again?

What percentage of Popes, since the lid blew off this scandal back in 2002, has yet to condemn the bishops (and up) who did the covering-up, and who has yet to defrock or excommunicate a single bishop for participating in that covering-up?

Because, again, the bishops would acted as they did early on were acting in the sincere, but mistaken, belief that they were acting reasonably.

[Bricker]

@jsgoddess

I think I want to ask a different question.

We know that the RCC has said they are making/have made/will make changes. We know there has been some small amount of admission of wrongdoing.

Has there been any information volunteered about incidents? Has it all been external sourcing forcing the issue, or has the RCC said, “Not only did X happen that y’all know about, but Y happened, too. You didn’t know it but we did and we vow it won’t happen again.”

Anything like that? Anything akin to the RCC attending confession and talking about stuff we didn’t already know?

Because that would be a sign that there was understanding about the wrongness of the actions instead of just the wrongness of getting caught.

That is an extremely fair question.

The answer is yes, to my certain knowledge, because three years ago we had an incident in my own diocese where an earlier allegation was brought ot light, and, acting under the new guidelines, there was a parish-wide letter sent out explaining a summary of the allegations, and the fact that the priest was being removed now that those allegations had come to light. The allegations were made to the church, not to any other external agency.

So I have personal knowledge that what you’re asking has been done. But I will also admit that I don’t know how often, overall, across the country that’s been done.

I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

[Candyman74]

@Novelty_Bobble

Viewed from an objective standpoint, the hierarchy of the RCC are a despicable bunch and their judgements bigoted and self-serving.

Yup, that sounds very objective!

[wonky]

@Bricker

That is an extremely fair question.

The answer is yes, to my certain knowledge, because three years ago we had an incident in my own diocese where an earlier allegation was brought ot light, and, acting under the new guidelines, there was a parish-wide letter sent out explaining a summary of the allegations, and the fact that the priest was being removed now that those allegations had come to light. The allegations were made to the church, not to any other external agency.

So I have personal knowledge that what you’re asking has been done. But I will also admit that I don’t know how often, overall, across the country that’s been done.

I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

That isn’t what I’m asking for. Yes, they might now say, “Hey, we just found out about this one! Lookie! We’re doing something!” There’s an advantage to them in doing this.

I’m asking for “You haven’t found out about this one, but in 1984 we shuffled Horace Grimholz from parish to parish despite his being a child rapist. That was wrong and we’re sorry.”

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

there were no rules, the USCCB adopted new rules, and those rules are being followed.

If the Mafia decided one day to stop killing and intimidating people and become a legitimate business (don’t ask what sort; I don’t know either) but didn’t fire any of the people who had been responsible for the Mafia’s past ruthlessness, would that make the Mafia morally A-OK?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

During what time period?

I ask this because there was a time when it was somewhat widely accepted that therapy could cure offenders.

Because of course the RCCC instantly adopts contemporary worldly fads and standards of judgment. :rolleyes:

And even then, you’d think even a bunch of total retards might think, “even if they’re cured, maybe putting them back in the same sort of environment where they had easy access to kids to molest might just prove too much for them to handle. Maybe we ought to keep them out of situations where they’ll work with kids.”

Not to mention, much of the time, the RCCC’s actions suggest a much greater concern about their reputation than anything else, leaning on victims and parents to keep their mouths shut, and moving priests out of parishes just ahead of the point where the scandal couldn’t have been contained.

And even in THIS DECADE, the RCCC has played hardball with victims and parents to minimize the potential settlement costs.

Why don’t you rail against judges that sentenced child molestors to therapy in the seventies, and then had those offenders go on to offend again?

Depends. Were those judges reinstating the offenders to working in day care centers, or just releasing them into the world in general?

I will freely admit that our society, as recently as the 1970s, didn’t take child molestation particularly seriously. And we fucked up badly as a result. However, secular American society has done what it can to acknowledge the fuckups and make things right. I don’t see that that’s anywhere near so true of the RCCC that claims values that are eternal, and not of this passing world.

Because, again, the bishops would acted as they did early on were acting in the sincere, but mistaken, belief that they were acting reasonably.

So I assume that, after placing a molesting priest in a SECOND parish, and finding that the priest molested again, nobody ever put such a priest in a THIRD parish. Right?

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

That is an extremely fair question.

The answer is yes, to my certain knowledge, because three years ago we had an incident in my own diocese where an earlier allegation was brought ot light, and, acting under the new guidelines, there was a parish-wide letter sent out explaining a summary of the allegations, and the fact that the priest was being removed now that those allegations had come to light. The allegations were made to the church, not to any other external agency.

So I have personal knowledge that what you’re asking has been done. But I will also admit that I don’t know how often, overall, across the country that’s been done.

I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

Question: “Has the church ever done ‘A’?”
You: “Of course the church has done ‘B’! Here is a fine example of the church doing ‘B’!”

Are you even capable of turning off “Lawyer-mode” anymore?

[Bricker]

@jsgoddess

That isn’t what I’m asking for. Yes, they might now say, “Hey, we just found out about this one! Lookie! We’re doing something!” There’s an advantage to them in doing this.

I’m asking for “You haven’t found out about this one, but in 1984 we shuffled Horace Grimholz from parish to parish despite his being a child rapist. That was wrong and we’re sorry.”

I follow you now.

I don’t know.

But my previous statement stands: I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

If the Mafia decided one day to stop killing and intimidating people and become a legitimate business (don’t ask what sort; I don’t know either) but didn’t fire any of the people who had been responsible for the Mafia’s past ruthlessness, would that make the Mafia morally A-OK?

No.

But of course the comparison is inapt, since the priests responsible HAVE been, quite literally, fired.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

I follow you now.

I don’t know.

But my previous statement stands: I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

Do you promise to give the results in a timely matter if it doesn’t favor the church, and not dismiss any criticism stemming from it as “church bashing”?

[wonky]

@Bricker

I follow you now.

I don’t know.

But my previous statement stands: I am willing to do a bit of research on this point, but only if it really has some value in the debate and won’t be dismissed as useless if it favors the Church but seized on as furher ammunition if it does not.

I’m not going to speak for anyone or for the general “debate.” I will have a slight tendency to think marginally better of those who did it, but I’ll be frank: Whatever you find won’t reflect better on you or the general membership, since you have no idea if they’re doing it. So, you might get lucky and they’ve been doing it, and that would satisfy my personal curiosity and maybe you might like to know it, too. But it won’t improve your standing in my eyes.

[wonky]

@Bricker

No.

But of course the comparison is inapt, since the priests responsible HAVE been, quite literally, fired.

No, they’ve been made Pope.

There are more avenues of responsibility than just “be a child molester.”

There’s “helping child molesters escape responsibility and/or punishment.” There’s “putting the reputation of the Church above the safety and health of children.” There’s “lying about it.” There’s “pressuring victims to keep silent.” There’s “being a shit.” There’s “blaming the messenger.” There’s “playing martyr.”

All of these things made it harder for children to be kept safe, for victims to find justice, for the Church to behave morally, and for people to trust the word of Catholics in power.

And the ones responsible for all of this haven’t been fired. They’ve been promoted.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Because of course the RCCC instantly adopts contemporary worldly fads and standards of judgment. :rolleyes:

How is this a relevant comment?

And even then, you’d think even a bunch of total retards might think, “even if they’re cured, maybe putting them back in the same sort of environment where they had easy access to kids to molest might just prove too much for them to handle. Maybe we ought to keep them out of situations where they’ll work with kids.”

Sure. And how about those total retard judges in the 1970s that would still sentence a second and third offender to probation and therapy?

Not to mention, much of the time, the RCCC’s actions suggest a much greater concern about their reputation than anything else, leaning on victims and parents to keep their mouths shut, and moving priests out of parishes just ahead of the point where the scandal couldn’t have been contained.

And even in THIS DECADE, the RCCC has played hardball with victims and parents to minimize the potential settlement costs.

Yes, that’s true. And I’m not denying that.

I fail to understand why, if I insist that Idi Amin was not a cannibal, someone feels they must prove that he was a murderer and a psycopath, as if to say, “See? See how bad he was?”

Yes, he was a murderer. Yes, he was a psychopath. But no, he was not a cannibal.

Is that truly such an impossible message to hear?

I will freely admit that our society, as recently as the 1970s, didn’t take child molestation particularly seriously. And we fucked up badly as a result. However, secular American society has done what it can to acknowledge the fuckups and make things right. I don’t see that that’s anywhere near so true of the RCCC that claims values that are eternal, and not of this passing world.

It isn’t. You’re right.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

How is this a relevant comment?

Sure. And how about those total retard judges in the 1970s that would still sentence a second and third offender to probation and therapy?

Yes, that’s true. And I’m not denying that.

I fail to understand why, if I insist that Idi Amin was not a cannibal, someone feels they must prove that he was a murderer and a psycopath, as if to say, “See? See how bad he was?”

Yes, he was a murderer. Yes, he was a psychopath. But no, he was not a cannibal.

Is that truly such an impossible message to hear?

It isn’t. You’re right.

Ghoddamn lawyer-mode.

1. Will you just quit with the “What about them over there, huh? Why aren’t you attacking them over there?” If judges letting people out on parole bugs you so fucking much, start a different fucking thread on it-that has nothing to do at all with this thread.
2. How many times are you going to use that pathetic “Idi Amin” klunker of an analogy? It sounds cheap and desperate.