It’s highly relevant to the OP, because the OP’s case makes it sound like the excommunication was a conscious decision: after weighing the facts and considering what she did, the Vatican decided to excommunicate her.
But that’s not what happened, and the truth makes the second point the OP was making dramatically different.
Again I disagree. Yes, there are some people that choose to read into posts words that are not there. There are other people (Hi, Duke!) that choose not to read posts that are there. But of the two arguments made, one was the church’s coverup up rapist pedophiles makes them scumbags, and the second was They won’t take the time to fix the pedophile problem, but they do spend time on excommunicating this nun. And that second point simply isn’t true; no time was spent; it was an automatic process, and you yourself acknowledged that but for my posting here, you would not have known that.
So, frankly, I’m happy with that result, as reviled as I no doubt will continue to be.
See, now, that’s the problem. The church has been covering up these events. They’ve been lying to the world about whether the molestation was even happening. They’ve repeatedly blamed the victim, and transferred the molester to a new church where he can then face exactly the same temptations.
All we have is their word that they’re no longer allowing this. And, frankly, their word isn’t worth anything at this point. They have a pattern of doing anything they can to protect the Church, even at the expense of innocence.
Let me ask you- why do you believe them now?
Edited to add: And another thing- if a private organization… say, ACORN… had allowed crimes to be committed in their name and then covered up those crimes for years- would you give them the benefit of the doubt when they said they weren’t going to let it happen anymore?
Hell, at the very least, the Catholic church should turn over to the police those priests and every shred of evidence they’ve got on them.
She’s a hospital administrator, and she can certainly continue in her duties as hospital administrator until she speaks to her confessor.
And, no, if she dies before she has a chance to explain herself, there is no particular relevance to this sanction, because it did not arise as an occasion of sin.
But I’m sure I didn’t need to explain any of that to you. After all,
I, for one, absolutely believe the Catholic Church is still covering up for child molestors and rapists and will continue to do so For. Ever.
In their minds they are God’s gift to this Earth. They can never be wrong. They can say whatever they want but they have lost all of my trust, whatever they had, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone can still have faith and trust in them. Not in their God, but in them.
Same here. I don’t give a damn at this point what “their law” is, since:
It’s a weak ass excuse.
Makes the implied claim that man’s laws (yeah they are man made laws) are more important than doing what is right and protecting the weak etc (God’s law).
So, fuck that excuse. On both fronts- the excommunication of that nun, and the systematic abuse and cover up of abuse that keeps cropping up over and over and over. Apparently The Law (such as it is), only has teeth when it suits the “right people”.
And I disagree with your disagreement. You may be right that Canon Law requires an automatic excommunication followed by an ability by the nun to explain herself and be brought back into the fold. May be right. I am, after all, merely accepting your authority on the matter given just your say so over that which was presented by the OP.
But even assuming you’re correct, it doesn’t address the substance of the OP. You can try to make the argument that the OP wanted to know why the Church excommunicated her so quickly and, yes, your (later) posts addressed that. But the larger argument was the comparisson between scenario 1 and scenario 2. And THAT argument can’t be explained by Canon Law.
I mean, you try to make the point that Church doctrine requires automatic excommunication and so that’s why scenario 2 happened. But the natural followup question would be “and why doesn’t scenario 1 also have that same requirement?” to which the answer would be “it just doesn’t.” and the summation would be “why in the holy fucking hell would it not? What in the fuck is wrong with a set of rules with such a glaringly obvious hole, particularly when you compare it with what happens in scenario 2?”
And your appeal to Canon Law does nothing to address this, which is the real substantive discussion of the OP.
Well, primarily because I have no intention of ever engaging you in a discussion. You’re a pedantic know-it-all who isn’t a hundredth as interesting, superior, or knowledgeable as you think you are.
You got nothin’, and I’m not about to “get up with fleas”.
Well, I have a licentiate in canon law, and I have quoted the particular canon law in question. I agree that the former assertion is simply more “accepting [my] authority,” but the latter is actual citation to authority, which neither the OP nor the article presented – and the article description of the excommunication is not inconsistent with my claims, in any event.
Bricker, the church is less complicated than criminal law.
If a cop shoots someone, there needs to be an automatic investigation to determine if that shooting was correct. The police who did the shooting are accountable and the legislators who wrote the laws are accountable. It would be a nightmare scenario if the first assumption was that whenever a policeman shoots someone, it’s justified, and let the victim’s family file suit to uncover any wrongdoing.
The point is, these are men following men’s law, and we are capable of mistakes. The best way to make things fair and transparent is to investigate everything.
On the other hand, the Pope and his cadre of eunuchs think themselves accountable to none but themselves. They think they are following god’s law, and they are the only ones able to interpret and enforce it. It would be as if the police had no accountability except to their Chief of Police, and the Chief decided what was ok and what was not.
The nun who saved a life deserved not excommunication. In fact, the whole investigation should have come down to this:
“Did you abort to save the mother’s life, and had the abortion not happened would both mother and child have died?”
“Yes it was to save the mother’s life and yes, both would have died”
“Case closed!”
The church is not complicated. They make their own laws and decide their own fate. Excommunication for this nun is a farce. Their investigation need not go further than testing the faith of people they demand it from.
What do you mean?? I’m not asking you to engage me in a discussion at all. I’m, asking you to explain to Shot From Guns, here, who, unlike most of the other posters in this thread apparently is unfamiliar with the topic. You criticized me for attempting to explain things, and so I’m bowing out – I’m asking you to generously give of your knowledge to settle the issue. After all, I don’t want to get yelled at any more for being a know-it-all. But there remains this unanswered, factual question. And you have already explained that you’re well aware of the issues at hand.
So, you are asking why a process that would take about a minute to copy over ‘abortion’ with ‘pedophilia’ isn’t done? Because they actually like diddling choir boys and don’t want to outlaw it in their clubs bylaws. Really, what other reason could there possibly be?
So, may I take this as an “I got nothin’, so I’m just gonna be a smartass”? Because that’s what I’m reading it as.
Oh, and FWIW, my cite is being raised Catholic, attending a Catholic gradeschool K-8, attending a Catholic high school, and attending a Jesuit university, while studying Catholic doctrine at all of them.