You seem to obtusely miss the point that a life saving nun who went astray of the rule about abortions in order to save the life of a medical patient had her case acted on within days, whereas boy raping priests got shuffled to other parishes so they could butt rape again with impunity while their cases languished for years. This isn’t bashing Catholics in general for the abuses of a few, this is bashing the policy of the higher ups who represent the whole system for actively shutting everyone up for years about butt raping boys while coming down on a woman for saving a life within days. I despise this conduct and the people that promulgate it and carry it out. The people that defend the conduct by accusing the people who denounce it as anti-Catholic seem willfully stupider than W choking on a pretzel.
Am I the only one who read this title as Fuck the Motherfucking Dope? 
Wow…the Catholic church would have preferred that the woman die? I wonder how she felt when she read that.
What a disgusting organization…and I used to give my money to those assholes. :mad: Is all organized religion this bad?
All of 'em except for mi – wait a minute, do you tithe, or are you one of those guys who throws a five in the basket every week?
Canon law be damned, criminal behavior is criminal behavior and the criminal needs to be turned over to the civil authorities.
I do not consider it catholic bashing to point out that the command structure of the catholic church is aiding and abetting criminals and is therefor a criminal organization.
Whatever canon law is, didn’t Jesus Christ (who never said one word about abortion and it certainly existed when he lived) repeatedly preach practicing the spirit of the law rather than blind adherence to the letter of the law?
Pretty much the entirety of Matthew 23, but some selections therefrom:
He seems to think mercy the better part of law and that corruption within a religious insitution should be called what it is and that the institution should clean itself up before worrying about what lies beyond it.
No.
Some of it’s worse.
Actually, I’m starting to think catholic individuals are deserving of criticism as well. If large number rose up and challenged the church, stopped attending mass and stopped financially supporting the organisation, the church might actually feel compelled to do something. Instead they make excuses, turn a blind eye and ignore the problem, and continue like nothing is wrong like the sheeple they are. It sickens me that I have family members who still belong to that evil, corrupt institution.
That made me laugh, Polycarp.
And I actually perused some canon law on excommunication, because I’m a glutton for punishment (I listen to Christian talk radio too). And I have to say, any institution that has rules offering more stringent protection to crackers than to children is inherently evil, and also insane. And that’s even if you believe in transubstantiation - presumably if the omnipotent creator of the universe is embodied in some bread-like substance, he can still look out for himself, unlike the child victims of this RICO-worthy organization.
No, but the thread title did make me titter a bit at the mental image of the threeway that it implied (esp. the necrophilia angle…
).
Oh, and as a long-ago lapsed Catholic talking from a rather removed and detached perspective, I do hope they elect a Pope who will end up completely cleaning house, updating doctrine to adhere to common sense, and bring the whole rotten edifice (inauthentic to the core, but that’s another discussion) out of the Dark Ages, but I certainly won’t be holding my breath.
Most definitely not.
If “canon law” means something other than “company policy manual”, then go ahead. It would be lovely to know these people were better than the usual corrupt frauds.
But I don’t expect much from you, Bricker.
I’m feelin’ that Protestant Reformation, y’all.
Sure. Kaylasdad99 has the right idea:
Correct.
Canon law (Can. 1398) provides that anyone who procures or assists in an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. The bishop did not excommunicate her. Her action excommunicated her. Latae sententiae means that the penalty exists instantly, and needs no further judicial findingor process to make it effective.
And that penalty only exists until she explains the circumstances of that particular decision, which she can quite easily as covered by the principle of unintended secondary effect, under which the medical procedure is quite acceptable.
So is the bishop quoted in the article lying or simply mistaken when he says the woman has to confess and repent, which I’m sure you realize has significance beyond “explains”?
Is the canon lawyer quoted in the article lying or simply mistaken when he says the bishop did not have to immediately declare the woman excommunicated?
Was canon law imposed on the church against its will or created, adopted, and promulgated by church leaders?
Does there exist one motherfucking individual with the authority to abrogate canon law, and if so, what would that motherfucking motherfucker be called?
There is a man standing over a body. The man has a smoking gun in his hand. The body has a ragged bullet hole in its face.
A police officer walks up and asks the man with the gun if he killed the person on the ground.
The man with the gun says, “No, I told him that I would shoot him if he didn’t give me his wallet. He didn’t give it to me, so he got himself shot.”
And in the distance, Bricker watches the scene and claps like a mental deficient and makes a creepy retarded person noise.
Law & Order: Canon Law would suck, but I bet Mariska Hargitay would do the most with it as the crime solving abortion approving nun. I dread what Vincent D’onofrio would do with a priest garb though.
So, this provides something a corrective to the OP’s assertion that “the Holy See jumped right on this situation and excommunicated her.”
The question, though, is whether it in any way negates the main point the OP was trying to make.
Neither the OP, nor anyone else in this thread, has ever stated that the disparate treatments meted out to the Sister, and to pedophile priests, are inconsistent with Canon Law. What they are saying is that the Catholic Church, as an institution, has chosen, through both its Law and its actions, to mete out punishments in a way that violates most people’s sense of propriety and morality, and that demonstrate a particular type of inconsistency or hypocrisy that also happens to work in the interests of the Church as an institution, and to the detriment of many of the victims of the child abusers within its ranks.
What Canon Law does or does not say about this is, to a non-Catholic, largely irrelevant. If you showed my a copy of the Canon Law that said:
then i would be forced to agree that the Catholic Church’s actions do not violate Canon Law, but it would not in any way change my opposition to the way the Church has dealt with these issues, and nor would it change my opinion that the Church is more concerned with self-preservation than with serving justice to its victims.
How many times do you need to be reminded that, just because a particular act might be allowed or tolerated under a particular law (civil or religious), people might still have their own moral and principled objections to the way those laws are written or enforced?
I take the view of one of my best friends (who was molested as a child, by a Catholic priest – he’s gotten over it, I guess, but he led a pretty screwed up life for a good 15 years and I doubt it was a coincidence). He said that the Pope will have to be caught on camera eating fetuses in a Nazi uniform before anyone’s allowed to take a stand, really… and even then someone will be there to explain that God works in mysterious ways.