Takes a little steam out of your “LET’S BE ACCURATE!” rant, though. 
Maybe I should make myself clearer: when I said
, I meant that unless there’s a pretty damned good explanation for why Joey the Rat (or someone speaking on his behalf) can’t announce that Hoyos’ failure to withdraw from the RCCC clergy means that he’s excommunicated, then I can’t see how this isn’t directly comparable to the excommunicated nun instance that was in the OP.
And if it’s directly comparable, then the only remaining argument I see is that aborting a fetus to save the mother is somehow morally worse than raping children.
If you insist on a whole new thread in another forum just to answer that question - well, you’re not answering that question as a favor to me. If you were to answer the question, it would be in order to continue to try to make the argument that there’s some underlying moral basis for the RCCC’s doing one thing one way, and the other thing another way.
If you don’t answer the question, then I guess you don’t want to make that argument anymore. I was wondering if you had a better argument in favor of the RCCC than I could envision, but I expect you don’t. I’m not terribly surprised.
Which seems to go against the principle Bricker stated - that the key thing is to have sex in a way that allows for the possibility of conception. Withdrawal certainly qualifies.
I’m beginning to think that the RCCC simply doesn’t like the idea that people might substantially reduce the odds of getting pregnant from genital intercourse. The closer one looks into any of this stuff, the harder it is to see a principle.
Since I accepted the correction instead of insisting I was right even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, I’d say not. I also think I still have a valid point about their equivocation, since you can use NFP and/or have sex at other infertile times (pregnancy, menopause).
I’ve asked you several questions, without calling you any names, vile or otherwise, or accusing you of anything, though I did express my misgivings that an argument against “partial birth” abortions would be used to justify pointless additional restrictions, so I offered my “no elective abortions in third trimester” compromise.
Well, there may be some anti-Catholic bigotry going on (some from disgruntled former Catholics), but overall I gather this is a spirited discussion of RCC policies and the effects of those policies. Heck, I didn’t rant at claims that current RCC policies official put and end to pedophile cover-ups. I just said it would take a decade or more for the RCC to prove to my satisfaction that they were serious about it. I suggest this isn’t some RCC-specific standard of mine I made up out of anti-RCC bias. If a drug addict wanted to convince me he was clean, or a criminal wanted to convince me he’d gone straight, a similar and lengthy probationary period would be needed. I’m not about to just take their word for it.
Well, you’ve still got mine, and it’s not that unkind and relatively slobber-free.
True. But other folks keep reading my responses and replying to them.
I’ll have this conversation in GD, or answer questions in GQ. For those that have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, you can surely deliver the death-blows of logic in GD.
If you want a private conversation, trying PMing or email.
Damn their oily hides!
I dunno - seems to me another pointless step taken for the sake of form when simpler solutions are at hand.
Oh noes, people can call your religious institution on its stunningly disgusting bullshit! However will you survive?!
You misspelled “evasive”.
Awwwww, poor bay-bee!
Y’know, this has to be the most pompous, self-centered thing I’ve seen you write, Bricker.
Like it’s worth it to any of us to open up a whole new thread in a different forum just to see if you actually have a tenable rebuttal to this one point in a long thread.
No, it doesn’t all revolve around you. We don’t give a flying fuck. Rebut, or leave the field, as you choose. Or even stick around and talk about how you would rebut here, if only we weren’t such a bunch of meanies, but how you might or might not have a rebuttal worth reading if only we’ll break down and start another thread elsewhere.
If you really feel like publishing a rebuttal in another forum, go for it. Start your own thread, if it matters to you. But that’s up to you. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to defend their ideas here. You can if you want. That’s all.
See - this is what we mean by the RCC STILL not getting the picture.
Pope appoints panel to investigate Ireland child sex abuse
Not ‘The Catholic Church’ but the Irish Catholic Church as if the problem is confined to that.
Besides - as one of the co-conspirators in the cover-up he should be indicting himself.
This is an unrepentant Pope and an unrepentant institution.
And I remain supremely uninterested in RCC mumbo-jumbo handwaving.
Meanwhile, between shedding crocodile tears, here’s another Joey The Rat gem.
Still not getting it are you Rat-Face? Child abuse is embedded in the RCC and the RCC, in the form of the current Pope, actively sought to conceal it. Until it is accepted that the Vatican and the current Pope actively put the RCC reputation ahead of not frigging abusing children and takes severe steps to punish those responsible - including King Rat - then the RCC should and will keep getting beat upon.
And so will their enablers and apologists.
What’s Latin for “independent prosecutor”?
In this hive of scum and villainy?
It seems to be ‘Pontifex’.
Catholic bashing? Here is a question for you, Bricker:
If you shoot yourself in the foot, who is the assailant-you, or the person who tries to take the gun away from you?
Oh yeah: if the RCCC wants to come clean, maybe it should authorize bishops to take the Rat’s 2001 update of Crimen Sollicitationis out of their safes and share it with the press.
If it says what it’s alleged to say, then there’s no defense. And it’s pretty much impossible to imagine a rationale - other than criminal conspiracy, of course - for keeping secret the RCCC’s policy on responding to instances of child abuse.
I can see where you went wrong. 
The RCC is like a sledge full of passengers fleeing wolves.
Irish Church, German Church, American Church, individual bishops … one by one they will be thrown to the wolves in the interest of ‘The Greater Good’.
I’m sure once Bricker has finished flicking through his copies of The Big Blue Book of Mumbo-Jumbo and Pedantry Made Simple he’ll be here with a stunning rebuttal.
And by ‘stunning rebuttal’ I mean ‘transparent hand-waving’. Or maybe another weak hand of ‘Playing the Victim’ cards.
Well, I think the principle is that people shouldn’t be having sex unless they want to get pregnant/impregnate.
I suspect **Bricker **himself finally sees, based on his lack of substantive response lately.
That’s Exhibit A in the indictment for criminal conspiracy.