Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

[MOIDALIZE]

@Sampiro

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.

I’m guessing he’d engage in quite a bit of corporal mortification.

[TWDuke]

How the fetus got into a Nazi uniform, I’ll never know.

[hotflungwok]

So, can we go ‘Fuck the fucking pope’ over this then?

Vatican to excommunicate women priests

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I would just like to point out that I finally made somebody’s signature line after 7 long years of attempted witty repartee. Thanks, Guin. I can die happy now.

[Polycarp]

@TWDuke

How the fetus got into a Nazi uniform, I’ll never know.

Well, the elephant was wearing the pajamas!

[Freudian_Slit]

Didn’t the Pope just say that one of the number one threats in today’s world is same sex marriage? Why does anyone take him seriously?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Because otherwise he’ll rape our sons. Duh.

[anya_marie]

Pope Palpatine can take his precious canon and use it for anal pleasure on himself and the other dried up, old, senile, crucifix sucking virgins with it.

Pope Benny can take his anti-condom stance and choke on it with a truckful of expired condoms from Africa. And … Pope Nazi can take his woman-hating self and kiss my birth-control-using liberated voting ass.

[YogSothoth]

They should just swoop in to arrest the Pope. I’m pretty sure Vatican City doesn’t have a standing army. Maybe he’ll make it easier for us and kill himself like Hitler before justice gets their hands on him

[Guinastasia]

@Sampiro

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.

Yeah, but everyone knows Jesus was – gasp! – a liberal!!!

[The_Second_Stone]

@Guinastasia

Yeah, but everyone knows Jesus was – gasp! – a liberal!!!

And a long haired, bearded sandal wearing hippie. Oh, and his lived with his mother until he was 30 and she thought he was God.

[BigT]

You know, what I’m wondering is if there’s anything in canon law that says the pope can’t say “Fuck this shit. If you commit pedophilia, or tied to hide someone else’s, you are automatically excommunicated.”

It seems to me if the church would at least put out a substantial rebuke of these people, it would go a long way.

(Wait, can the Pope excommunicate himself? One would think so…)

[Nancarrow]

@Bricker

If anyone has any interest in hearing the actual facts of canon law, please let me know.

If the intent of this thread is the 34,651st Catholic bashing this year, please go right ahead.

You really are your own worst enemy. :dubious: There’ve been a few times in the past, I believe, where I have jumped in at some of your transparent apologetics to say words to the effect of “I know you’re better than this”. Well, that won’t be happening any more.

I hope you soon realise that your contribution about canon law only STRENGTHENS the justification for vigorous Catholic-bashing.

@Lobohan

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.

I’ve given up trying to fathom why Bricker insists on carrying water for fucked up people and situations just because they happen in his political and/or religious club.

@Unauthorized_Cinnamon

It’s just getting farcical now.

Too fucking true. I think I’ll quote you again.

@Unauthorized_Cinnamon

It’s just getting farcical now.

[tagos]

@Bricker

If anyone has any interest in hearing the actual facts of canon law, please let me know.

If the intent of this thread is the 34,651st Catholic bashing this year, please go right ahead.

We don’t friggin’ give a flying frack about canon law or any other magic sky-pixie nonsense.

Neither do we give the same about any of your pettifogging My First Law Degree hand-waving on this or any other subject.

What we give many Flying Fracks about is a homophobic, woman-hating, pedo-enabling, responsibility-avoiding bunch of male fantasists continuing to wilfully destroy other people’s lives.

[Bricker]

@TWDuke

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”?

He’s mistaken, as far as literally ‘repent.’ But she does have to receive the sacrament of penance, which is “to confess” in ordinary lingo. But her confession does not have to include repentance, merely explanation.

In other words, the process by which the latae sententiae excommunication is lifted is the receipt of the sacrament of penance.

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?

He’s precisely correct. The bishop didn’t have to say a word. The woman was excommunicated the moment the vent happened, and would have been if no one else but she knew about her involvement. The bishop’s statement was an accurate one, as regards Catholic canon law. But he didn’t take any action. In precisely the same sense, I can “declare her” excommunicated, and so can you. You are not imposing a penalty; you are commenting on the result of automatic process of law.

Was canon law imposed on the church against its will or created, adopted, and promulgated by church leaders?

. Created 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?

The Pope.

All that assumes that canon law is flawed here, and needs to be revised. I don’t agree that it does. (At least, with respect to this issue – if you’re arguing canon law should include similar penalties for other crimes, you have a point.)

[Polycarp]

@The_Second_Stone

And a long haired, bearded sandal wearing hippie. Oh, and his lived with his mother until he was 30 and she thought he was God.

Jesus Was Capricorn (Youtube video) … and somehow strangely appropriate to this thread.

[Uzi]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

Yes, something that sits on the shelf until someone does something that displeases the powers that be at which time they are hit over the head with it, and is completely ignored or circumvented when it is inconvenient to follow it otherwise.
In other words, “It’s our club and we’ll do what we want, so :p!”
But at least companies have some oversight from the government regarding rules and regulations they must abide by to be allowed to exist.

[Bricker]

@mhendo

So, this provides something a corrective to the OP’s assertion that “the Holy See jumped right on this situation and excommunicated her.”

Yes.

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?

Go right ahead. Scream all you like at the Church for those choices. How dare they not punish abusers as I wish them to? How dare they not ordain women? How dare they oppose abortion?

But I did ask if anyone wanted the facts straight on the incident that apparently sparked this thread. Of course canon law is irrelevant to a non-catholic. My only point here is to correct the impression that in this case, the church took some sort of affirmative action against this woman, and now demands her repentance before removing that judgment.

You other complaints boil down to: you’re not running the church the way I want you to run the church.

Um… yeah. We’re not.

[Bricker]

@tagos

We don’t friggin’ give a flying frack about canon law or any other magic sky-pixie nonsense.

Neither do we give the same about any of your pettifogging My First Law Degree hand-waving on this or any other subject.

What we give many Flying Fracks about is a homophobic, woman-hating, pedo-enabling, responsibility-avoiding bunch of male fantasists continuing to wilfully destroy other people’s lives.

Of course, of course.

And… how many guns does the Church have? How are people rounded up and forced into mass every Sunday, I forget – is it tanks or just half-tracks?

People can walk away from the church. It’s a voluntary organization. Indeed, why would you choose to belong to a group run by homophobic, woman-hating, pedo-enabling, responsibility-avoiding bunch of male fantasists continuing to wilfully destroy other people’s lives?

[LavenderBlue]

@Bricker

Of course, of course.

And… how many guns does the Church have? How are people rounded up and forced into mass every Sunday, I forget – is it tanks or just half-tracks?

People can walk away from the church. It’s a voluntary organization. Indeed, why would you choose to belong to a group run by homophobic, woman-hating, pedo-enabling, responsibility-avoiding bunch of male fantasists continuing to wilfully destroy other people’s lives?

Oh bullshit. The Catholic church has a tremendous amount of influence and more financial resources than many countries. When I was growing in NYC in the 1980’s I remember government officials forever consulting with unelected and unaccountable to the public church officials.

This not an organization without a great deal of power or influence in much of the world.

This case sickens me. The nun in question literally saved a woman’s life. Not a goddamned fetus or a fertilized egg or a zygote. A person. The notion that she has to beg forgiveness for this act of rational decent human kindness from a group of virgin men who know nothing of human sexuality let alone of pregnancy or childbirth is insane.

The church heirarchy can do whatever the fuck it wants. And it turn I can tell them they are a group of misogynistic, fetus worshipping, Nazi war criminal sheltering, pedophile tolerating crazy psychopaths who make this world a worse place wherever they go.