Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

[akennett]

@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?

And this, right here, is why it’s not just the leadership of the Catholic Church that is to blame for the evils promulgated by this institution, but every single fucking member of this ass-backwards religion. Anyone who contributes one penny or even calls himself a Catholic, or has done so in the last two decades or more, is morally culpable for aiding and abetting pedo priests, for allowing the unchecked spread of AIDS in Africa, for coercing women into dangerous, life-threatening decisions, and more.

Wake up, Catholics. The evil resides not just in your Hitler Youth Pope, but in you as well.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

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?

Adults can walk away from the church.

[Bricker]

@LavenderBlue

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.

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.

If you want to slam the Church for being against birth control, or abortion, or female priests, or for sheltering molestors – go ahead. Those are all fair statements of fact. The Church IS against abortion. If you accuse the Church of being against abortion I’ll defend the idea, but won’t deny the fact. If you accuse the Church of a massive breach of her duty when molestors were sheltered, I won’t deny the fact or defend the action.

But on this particular issue, this nun, you’re accusing the Church of facts that aren’t true.

Probably, you think, I should just shut up. Since the Church is so manifestly guilty on other grounds, do they really deserve any defense on this ground?

Well… yes. As does Idi Amin, if you claim he was a cannibal. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Idi Amin, but he wasn’t a cannibal. And if you post that he was, I’m going to correct you, thus ‘defending’ Idi Amin.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Adults can walk away from the church.

Yes.

As with many other aspects of society. Adults can choose to live in Arizona, that facist, racist state, or move. Children have no choices and must live where their guardians dictate.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Yes.

As with many other aspects of society. Adults can choose to live in Arizona, that facist, racist state, or move. Children have no choices and must live where their guardians dictate.

In this case, those guardians have failed in their duty by not demanding greater accountability on the part of the Catholic Church.

That said, American Catholics seem to be much angrier about it than many overseas, although that may simply be a function of my location (ie., if people in Spain are angry I’m probably not going to hear much about it).

@Bricker

Well… yes. As does Idi Amin, if you claim he was a cannibal. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Idi Amin, but he wasn’t a cannibal. And if you post that he was, I’m going to correct you, thus ‘defending’ Idi Amin.

The Catholic Church = Idi Amin.

You heard it here first.

[Mr.Moto]

Adults can walk away from atheism or other churches as well, so I don’t know what the point is there.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

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?

Yes, why do you?

And while we’re at it, you might, if you were being honest, note that most of the OP was about child abuse. Why have you chosen to try to defend the abusers rather than the children? Is your blind obedience really that strong? What does your precious “canon law” have to say there? You’re avoiding it, and it’s no mystery why.l

Be careful lest you find yourself sharing the same circle of Hell as the child-raping priests you’re supporting here.

[Duke]

When I researched the first translations of the Bible to modern English, I noticed that most versions such as Coverdale’s and Tyndale’s translated “Pharisee” as “lawyer”.

Just saying.

[LavenderBlue]

@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.

If you want to slam the Church for being against birth control, or abortion, or female priests, or for sheltering molestors – go ahead. Those are all fair statements of fact. The Church IS against abortion. If you accuse the Church of being against abortion I’ll defend the idea, but won’t deny the fact. If you accuse the Church of a massive breach of her duty when molestors were sheltered, I won’t deny the fact or defend the action.

But on this particular issue, this nun, you’re accusing the Church of facts that aren’t true.

Probably, you think, I should just shut up. Since the Church is so manifestly guilty on other grounds, do they really deserve any defense on this ground?

Well… yes. As does Idi Amin, if you claim he was a cannibal. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Idi Amin, but he wasn’t a cannibal. And if you post that he was, I’m going to correct you, thus ‘defending’ Idi Amin.

A group of celibate men are having a hissy fit because a rational human being helped save another person life’s and I’m being irrational?

:dubious:

How could you possibly compare what happened here to any sort of murder? The woman AND the fetus would have died had the abortion not been performed. What prosecutor would bring charges under such circumstances?

This is not a court case.

And yeah I think you should should shut up. More importantly I think the church heirarchy should just shut up. If I hear one more rant about the evils of abortion or birth control pills or condoms or IVF or being gay from a group nattering twits who don’t even have sex let alone spouses or children I think I’ll scream.

Church officials have an insane ideology that disdains normal human sexuality and places zygotes, embryos and fetuses above any other consideration. They need to shuck off Augustine and yes STFU.

[Maastricht]

Why are we attacking Bricker? He is a Catholic, and those guys love to be martyrs, and second, he is Bricker, so he loves to argue.

The question is, what can we DO about the destructive political and manageral decisions made by Catholic Church managemen the past decade?

Apparently, neither individuals nor organizations can sue the CC.

What if the United Nations, the Red Cross or the World Health Organization (condoms!) would demand the CC change its stance? They would be Brickered away.

What if the UN would impose an ecomomic sanction on the Vatican?

What if the UN decided that all governments of the countries that are members would tax the Church into oblivion unless they listened to valid complaints? Would the Holy See move to some tax-evasion pradise like Monaco?

Frankly, I think our only hope is Google. They could ban the Pope’s edicts off the Net. If the World Press follows suit, we would get somewhere.
Yes, I’m joking.
There is not a damn thing anyone can do. The Church will sit this out, feeling as smug as a smug martyr, and wait for better times. perhaps our only hope is that they will listen to their PR guys insofar as that they will increase some humantarian cause. So if the CC suddenly starts caring about the environment or about world hunger, I won’t be surprised.

[Anaamika]

I will try to say this as calmly as I can, because the very issue of the Catholic church makes me see red:

Why doesn’t the Church automatically excommunicate child-rapists?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr.Moto

Adults can walk away from atheism or other churches as well, so I don’t know what the point is there.

The point is that children can’t - but other churches (and atheism) do not have a history of victimization of children. Or, more importantly, perhaps, a history of systematic institutional enabling of victimization of children.

@Anaamika

Why doesn’t the Church automatically excommunicate child-rapists?

Oh, an easy one: because the Pope doesn’t want to.

[Lightnin]

Bricker, we’ve got two situations here that we’re talking about.

One, a nun who allowed an abortion which saved the life of the mother. If the mother had died, the fetus would have died as well. For this, she was automatically excommunicated.

The other situation is decades (at least) of systematic coverup of pedophilia and rape on the part of priests. This coverup has destroyed the lives of many of the victims, and continues even to this day. The priests have had their lives and reputations protected by the Church.

And yet, given these two situations, you’re arguing Canon law? You saw this thread, and attempted to portray it as nothing more than yet another opportunity for us to bash the Church?!

What the hell would it take for you to finally have enough? What if one of your children had been a victim? I know that if I were a Catholic, I’d be screaming for those responsible to be held accountable. I normally have a good amount of respect for you- we disagree, and I think you hold the letter of the law to be more important than the intent, but for the most part, you seem to be honorable.

This, though… this is not honorable. If you didn’t approve of the Catholic bashing you knew was going to occur in this thread, you could’ve just ignored the thread. Instead, you popped in to threadshit. Well, in doing so, you’ve tacitly approved of the nun’s excommunication for saving a life, and you’ve also just voiced your approval for child rape and the covering up of that rape.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Lightnin

What the hell would it take for you to finally have enough? What if one of your children had been a victim?

Let’s not go there. Please?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

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.

Are you referring to children with that word “people”? You know how they get rounded up and forced to go, and you know what sometimes happens when they do, and why it keeps on happening. Can you acknowledge that for us or can’t you?

[heatmiserfl]

@Bricker

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.

Look if her excommunication for a direct abortion would have been Latae sententiae then why would she need further judgment to be “recommunicated” if it was actually an indirect abortion? No assessment of facts means that God automatically judged, right? Well, He should have judged appropriately for an indirect abortion.

This sort of Latae sententiae discourages doctors in a catholic hospital from performing an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger for fear of a possible excommunication. It’s like a doctor not taking certain risks for fear of a law suit.

If you can’t figure out why the catholic church sucks because it allows for due process for pedophiles (or even reinforcement of the crimes) but performing an indirect abortion gets you Latae sententiae, then you’re an apologist.

[Novelty_Bobble]

Bricker, the whole point of the church is that you point a metaphorical loaded weapon at yourself day and night…why would they need a real tank?

[Bricker]

@LavenderBlue

How could you possibly compare what happened here to any sort of murder? The woman AND the fetus would have died had the abortion not been performed. What prosecutor would bring charges under such circumstances?

OK, so imagine a gang of rapists break inot a house, and the homeowner, in defending himself and his family, shoots them dead.

Someone, in some kind of formal process, should clear the homeowner. In some cases, sure, it would be the prosecutor’s office simply deciding not to bring charges. But in other cases, equally valid, the policy might be to submit the case to a grand jury, not because the prosecutor wishes to “bring charges” – indeed he may tell the grand jury that they shouldn’t indict – but because the policy is to have the grand jury process every killing.

This is not a court case.

It’s a complaint about the law of the Church. What the heck do you think excommunication is, if not a formal legal status under canon law?

And yeah I think you should should shut up. More importantly I think the church heirarchy should just shut up. If I hear one more rant about the evils of abortion or birth control pills or condoms or IVF or being gay from a group nattering twits who don’t even have sex let alone spouses or children I think I’ll scream.

Church officials have an insane ideology that disdains normal human sexuality and places zygotes, embryos and fetuses above any other consideration. They need to shuck off Augustine and yes STFU.

Well… no.

I continue to believe that on a board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance, factual claims should be challenged when they’re not true.

I’m not going to debate your claim of “insane ideology,” because that’s obviously not a factual claim. But the complaint about excommunication was obviously based on a flawed understanding of what the process actually is.

That deserves correction, just as as a flawed claim about Idi Amin’s culinary habits would deserve. And if the response was that Idi Amin was such an unmitigated bastard that no one should peak up to defend him on any grounds whatsoever… well, I’m just going to reject that approach.

[Bricker]

@heatmiserfl

Look if her excommunication for a direct abortion would have been Latae sententiae then why would she need further judgment to be “recommunicated” if it was actually an indirect abortion? No assessment of facts means that God automatically judged, right? Well, He should have judged appropriately for an indirect abortion.

No, it doesn’t mean “God judged.”

God certainly judged her sinfulness (or lack thereof, in thise case). But the process of excommunication is not God’s judgment; it’s a legal Church process.

If you don’t like my grand jury analogy, think of it as a cop that’s automatically put on administrative leave following a shooting. The shooting could have been highly justified, saving the lives of hostages, or it could have been careless, or it could have been deliberate murder. We don’t know. So we have an automatic process: cop goes before a review board and explains the shooting. Note that he doesn’t “ask for forgiveness.” He explains what happened. Board agrees, suspension over, back to work.

This sort of Latae sententiae discourages doctors in a catholic hospital from performing an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger for fear of a possible excommunication. It’s like a doctor not taking certain risks for fear of a law suit.

If you can’t figure out why the catholic church sucks because it allows for due process for pedophiles (or even reinforcement of the crimes) but performing an indirect abortion gets you Latae sententiae, then you’re an apologist.

I agree that canon law should impose a similar penalty for pedophile clerics who abuse. I don’t disagree with that point at all. In fact, I think canon law should go farther, and impose an automatic loss of the clerical state for a first offense. It’s completely inconsistent to treat one crime so severely and fail to punish the other.

[ElvisL1ves]

“Legal Church process” is an oxymoron, and so is “canon law”. Calling it law doesn’t make it law, nor does it make it more respectable. Apparently you don’t understand that. Capitalizing the word “Church” doesn’t add respectability to the organization, either.

Perhaps you could back up and explain the difference between what you call “canon law” here and “corporate policy manual”, and why the former deserves added consideration. If you can drop the blinders and do it, that is.