Fuck the Motherfucking Pope

[Icerigger]

I don’t mean for this question to be sarcastic but since the methods for dealing with abuse come straight from the top of the CC and they claim to have moral authority over the Catholic laity, does the ordinary Catholic have the right to question how the Pope and Cardinals & Bishops handle this matter?

The teaching authority of the CC claims to be infallible in maters or morality so if they decided secrecy was the best method of dealing with child abuse can a Catholic in good conscience disagree with whom God has placed above them. The current Pope himself has stated that human conscience itself is to be subordinate to the Roman Pontiff. So maybe “good Catholics” have no choice and are duty bound by their faith to accept the way the Vatican has chosen to deal with this problem.

[Shot_From_Guns]

So, Bricker, I’d like to see your comments on how you feel about the RCC now that there’s evidence that, for at least a while, the *official position of the Church *was to enable the rape of children. Seeing as that’s pretty damned close to an official position of raping them, I mean, which was your criterion for leaving.

[Stratocaster]

Seriously, now that Bricker has stated (whatever motive you assign to this decision) he’s out of this thread, how long will the “So, Bricker, will you answer this question, you coward?” type posts continue? I predict at least another page.

[Shot_From_Guns]

You never know–his testicles might decide to abandon their cowardly flight up toward his throatal area and descend to their customary place nestled in his abdomen.

[Stratocaster]

Didn’t seem like a cowardly retreat to me. This was a shit-flinging party, with elements of legitimate outrage interspersed just to confuse things. Elvis, for example, wouldn’t agree with Bricker if Bricker told him the sky was blue.

[ElvisL1ves]

Not quite. Bricker would never say something that truthful, not here. His posts are strictly to start arguments that he can have fun telling himself he’s “winning”. Posting the truth doesn’t let him do that.

Seriously, can you point to anything he’s said that I’ve called him on where the truthful (or moral, or reasonable) one has turned out to be him? Or are you just copying his favorite false-equivalence tactic as an easy substitute for actual thought?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shot_From_Guns

So, Bricker, I’d like to see your comments on how you feel about the RCC now that there’s evidence that, for at least a while, the *official position of the Church *was to enable the rape of children. Seeing as that’s pretty damned close to an official position of raping them, I mean, which was your criterion for leaving.

Apparently you’ll have to rephrase the question and put it in GD. He’s taken the coward’s way out here.

[you_with_the_face]

He’s probably sitting in a corner somewhere, grappling with his cognitive dissonance headache.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain_Amazing

Well, I think the principle is that people shouldn’t be having sex unless they want to get pregnant/impregnate.

No, I think we’ve already dashed that one to pieces.

1. The rhythm method of attempting to avoid pregnancy is A-OK in the RCCC. And it IS a method of attempting to avoid pregnancy. This would clearly defeat the notion that Catholics shouldn’t be having sex unless they want the outcome to be a pregnancy.

2. What Bricker claims as the underlying principle is that, whether a couple wants to get pregnant or not, they have to have sex in a way that’s open to the possibility of getting pregnant. It’s OK to reduce the odds of pregnancy (see (1)), but not to make it impossible by artificial means.

3. And yet, reducing the odds further by various means, natural or artificial (withdrawal, condoms, the Pill, etc.), seems to be verboten.

Number (3) is the rock on which the principle Bricker elucidates gets shattered. And after that, I don’t see what new principle can be defined that is consistent with what we know. Finding that the RCCC is opposed to withdrawal surprised the hell out of me, but it knocks a hole in any attempt to make a principle of natural v. artificial means.

[Guinastasia]

@Icerigger

The teaching authority of the CC claims to be infallible in maters or morality

That’s not what papal infallibility is all about:

Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

* a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
* an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

So far, the ONLY ex cathedra statements have been about Mary – nothing about matters of morality.

[Icerigger]

I have always heard that was well but it is really much more complicated than that.

Now the Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff, meeting all of the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council,
2. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, meeting a similar set of conditions but from the body of bishops led by the Pope, not the Pope alone,
3. the teachings of the Universal Magisterium, meeting the conditions taught by the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

[Kobal2]

@YogSosoth

They should just swoop in to arrest the Pope. I’m pretty sure Vatican City doesn’t have a standing army.

Dude, you do *not *want to fuck with the Swiss Guard.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Let’s assume I started a GD thread with tago’s links, demonstrating a cover-up by a senior RCC official who is now the Pope.

How would I phrase my OP in a manner likely to inspire serious non-insulting non-drooling debate? For that matter, what is the debate at this point?

[digs]

@Kobal2

Dude, you do *not *want to fuck with the Swiss Guard.

No wonder they’re so effective. I’d be laughing at the gaudy striped jammies while they disembowled me with that 12-bladed-knife-with-a-corkscrew.

[Sampiro]

@Kobal2

Dude, you do *not *want to fuck with the Swiss Guard.

Actually, you really don’t. There’s a reason those pants are so baggy.

[ivan_astikov]

@Sampiro

Actually, you really don’t. There’s a reason those pants are so baggy.

I’d look mean and intense too, if I was forced to walk around like that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Does it matter anymore whether** Bricker** is excommunicated or just forced to leave under his own stated principle? He’s not a Catholic anymore either way, right?

[SteveG1]

@ElvisL1ves

Does it matter anymore whether** Bricker** is excommunicated or just forced to leave under his own stated principle? He’s not a Catholic anymore either way, right?

It doesn’t matter to me, and I’ve seen absolutely nothing anywhere in this thread to make me change my mind or opinions. As to a question further up on the page,

@Cartooniverse

Not to Bricker they’re not.

Speaking purely hypothetically and without an innuendo, suggestion, hint or threat either implied or stated towards any one Doper in any manner shape or form, what would be the position of any poster in this thread if his/her 9 year old son came home with a lot stories to tell and semen and blood in his underpants which happened to be a perfect DNA match to the local priest with whom that son had spent the afternoon?

Wonder what excuses would be offered up then.

Maybe it’s good that I don’t have any kids because, NO excuse would be accepted, and any that were offered would just enrage me even more. Prison might be the safest place for the preacher or priest to be.

[Cumberdale]

@Guinastasia

That’s not what papal infallibility is all about:

So far, the ONLY ex cathedra statements have been about Mary – nothing about matters of morality.

For an organization that teaches that all people are sinners, are wretched etc, the fact that anyone can speak on any issue without error is laughable. If someone can speak without error on one thing, why can’t others do likewise on other topics?

[RTFirefly]

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from abuse victims for the sins of priests and promised to “do everything possible” to ensure that Roman Catholic clerics never rape or molest children again.

Benedict’s pledge was similar to comments he has made in the past. But it was uttered in the highly symbolic setting of a Mass in St. Peter’s Square, concelebrated by 15,000 white-robed priests, all marking the end of the Vatican’s Year of the Priest – a year marred by revelations of hundreds of new cases of clerical abuse, coverups in several nations and Vatican inaction to root out pedophiles.

Still don’t see anything suggesting that the Rat even so much as mentioned the sins of bishops or cardinals.

Not exactly surprised, needless to say.