Spanish bishop makes inflammatory comments about women who've aborted <title-edited>

Delirium · 11-01-2012 12:29pm #1

Are the RCC having some sort of "say the most offensive sh*t possible" competition this year??

The Archbishop of Granada, Javier Martinez, said in his Christmas sermon that it was acceptable for women who have had an abortion to be raped. Author Manuel António Pin expresses his outrage in the daily Jornal de Notícias: "The Spanish Church won't let anyone dissuade it from its intolerant traditions. ... After [Prime Minister] Mariano Rajoy, who is close to the Church, announced his intention of 'extirpating the putrid secular abortion law' that was passed under Zapatero's government I was given a copy of a Christmas sermon delivered by the Archbishop of Granada in which he says that 'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'. ... For the Archbishop Hitler's and Stalin's crimes (he forgot Franco's) were 'less dreadful than abortion'. In such situations even a non-believer wishes there was a God to condemn these people."

Source

MOD NOTE:
Thread title changed from "Spanish bishop says its ok to rape women who've had abortions".
(For new readers - this will explain the translation battle later in the thread.)

ANOTHER MOD NOTE:
Thread title changed again from "Spanish bishop makes inflammatory comments about women who've aborted <title-edited>"; btw, there's an 85-char limit on thread titles

Penn · 11-01-2012 12:35pm

I'm going to book flights to Spain.

So I can kick the living sh*t out of that f*cker

strobe · 11-01-2012 12:37pm

Perhaps he meant that by a woman allowing an abortion to be performed on her she is allowing a man 'to abuse her body without restrictions'?

smcgiff · 11-01-2012 12:38pm

A wounded animal is more dangerous. Hopefully this animal is in it's death throes.

charlemont · 11-01-2012 12:43pm

So that's why Larry Murphy went to Spain, I bet Larry attends mass to listen to that priest.:rolleyes:

Delirium · 11-01-2012 12:45pm

strobe wrote: »

Perhaps he meant that by a woman allowing an abortion to be performed on her she is allowing a man 'to abuse her body without restrictions'?

Possibly, but the use of "man" instead of "doctor" leaves it too vague and can easily be read as it's okay to rape women who've had abortions.

jhegarty · 11-01-2012 12:49pm

Any source on this , that isn't that one article ?

Penn · 11-01-2012 12:51pm

strobe wrote: »

Perhaps he meant that by a woman allowing an abortion to be performed on her she is allowing a man 'to abuse her body without restrictions'?

I doubt it. 'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so' reads to me that she gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body because she has already had an abortion

MagicMarker · 11-01-2012 12:59pm

jhegarty wrote: »

Any source on this , that isn't that one article ?

Can you speak Portuguese?

Original Article.

Horses Mouth.

Delirium · 11-01-2012 1:00pm

jhegarty wrote: »

Any source on this , that isn't that one article ?

Link to google translate version of the document produced by the bishop.

Link to original Spanish version

11-01-2012 1:06pm

yeah
Eso le da a los varones la
licencia absoluta, sin límites, de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer,

seems clear cut enough

Sarky · 11-01-2012 1:11pm

I would laugh if it wasn't such a mind-bogglingly heinous statement.

im invisible · 11-01-2012 1:14pm

I said to Johnny 'my fanta tastes like cola' WHAT THE FCUK?

Beruthiel · 11-01-2012 1:41pm

Sarky wrote: »

I would laugh if it wasn't such a mind-bogglingly heinous statement.

Yup.
It's so appalling, I don't have the words.

Galvasean · 11-01-2012 1:48pm

I'm really hoping it's some sort of terrible mistranslation.

coadyd · 11-01-2012 2:21pm

sick sick twisted inhuman bastard....:mad:

Tea_Bag · 11-01-2012 2:48pm

can't wait for the Vatican to defend this one.

Doctor Jimbob · 11-01-2012 2:58pm

Tea_Bag wrote: »

can't wait for the Vatican to defend this one.

Can we have a little competition? Whoever guesses their response wins!

I'm going to guess they'll go with the 'completely ignore' option.

Sarky · 11-01-2012 2:59pm

Someone will mention Hitler, Stalin, and/or Pol Pot.

Penn · 11-01-2012 3:00pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can we have a little competition? Whoever guesses their response wins!

I'm going to guess they'll go with the 'completely ignore' option.

"Abortion is wrong"

Dodge the issue - Check
Doesn't say the priest/bishop was wrong - Check
Reiterates a moral point they have no real business making - Check

Seems like a winner to me.

11-01-2012 3:03pm

"don't have abortions and you won't have anything to worry about then"

sensibleken · 11-01-2012 3:29pm

"Outrage over this is political correctness gone mad"

actually thats the after hours response

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:31pm

Folks I ain't religous at all and having read that i don't know how in the name of jaysis ( pun intended) how ye concluded its ok to rape women who've had abortions... thread title is misleading and disengenious.

i wish the OP would change it tbh, i think its designed to be inflammatory (apologies if i'm wrong-though i doubt it) it just furthers the anti-christian agenda that appears prevalent on boards.ie .

He says the only thing a christian would do is forgive....

There is only one medicine for this crime: forgiveness, medicine that only Christians know

also says :

A Teen tricked by the guy who abused her..

so he doesn't give permission/or advocate abuse of a woman who's had an abortion but rather the opposite

FWIW- i don't see the word RAPE anywhere. please point it out to me, otherwise my earlier point still stands- i.e designed to inflame.

Cheers.

11-01-2012 3:35pm

thebullkf wrote: »

Folks I ain't religous at all and having read that i don't know how in the name of jaysis ( pun intended) how ye concluded its ok to rape women who've had abortions... thread title is misleading and disengenious.

i wish the OP would change it tbh, i think its designed to be inflammatory (apologies if i'm wrong-though i doubt it) it just furthers the anti-christian agenda that appears prevalent on boards.ie .

He says the only thing a christian would do is forgive....

also says :

so he doesn't give permission/or advocate abuse of a woman who's had an abortion but rather the opposite

FWIW- i don't see the word RAPE anywhere. please point it out to me, otherwise my earlier point still stands- i.e designed to inflame.

Cheers.

Quoted directly from the sermon:
Pero matar a un niño indefenso,...
¡y que lo haga su propia madre!
Eso le da a los varones la licencia absoluta, sin límites,...
de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer,...
porque la tragedia se la traga ella,...
...y se la traga como si fuera un derecho:

My line-by-line interpretation:
But to kill a defenceless child,...
...and to do his own mother! (literal translation, may be a misquote/typo in the source. I'm assuming it means "and for it to be done by his own mother")
That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to...
...abuse the body of the woman/women...
...because she swallows the tragedy,...
...swallows it as if it were a right.

I think the line "That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women" is what (rightly IMO) has people up in arms, and if he doesn't explicitly mention rape, it's certainly one reasonable interpretation of what he said

GLaDOS · 11-01-2012 3:36pm

^^

'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'.

This is the quote causing all the trouble.

It could be an interpretation/translation issue though?

Sonics2k · 11-01-2012 3:36pm

True, the word Rape is not used. However, as copied from the AH thread, here's the translation.

But to kill a defenceless child,...
...and to do his own mother! (literal translation, may be a misquote/typo in the source. I'm assuming it means "and for it to be done by his own mother")
That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to...
...abuse the body of the woman/women...
...because she swallows the tragedy,...
...swallows it as if it were a right.

'Without limits to abuse the body of the women.'

I think that's a pretty open statement right there. And abuse is a horrible word to use in this case.

Penn · 11-01-2012 3:36pm

thebullkf wrote: »

Folks I ain't religous at all and having read that i don't know how in the name of jaysis ( pun intended) how ye concluded its ok to rape women who've had abortions... thread title is misleading and disengenious.

i wish the OP would change it tbh, i think its designed to be inflammatory (apologies if i'm wrong-though i doubt it) it just furthers the anti-christian agenda that appears prevalent on boards.ie .

He says the only thing a christian would do is forgive....

also says :

so he doesn't give permission/or advocate abuse of a woman who's had an abortion but rather the opposite

FWIW- i don't see the word RAPE anywhere. please point it out to me, otherwise my earlier point still stands- i.e designed to inflame.

Cheers.

You raise some fair points. But while it doesn't say 'rape', what would you take from this part of the sentence:

gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions

Absolute licence.... to abuse her body.... without restrictions....

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:38pm

28064212 wrote: »

Quoted directly from the sermon:
Pero matar a un niño indefenso,...
¡y que lo haga su propia madre!
Eso le da a los varones la licencia absoluta, sin límites,...
de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer,...
porque la tragedia se la traga ella,...
...y se la traga como si fuera un derecho:

My line-by-line interpretation:
But to kill a defenceless child,...
...and to do his own mother! (literal translation, may be a misquote/typo in the source. I'm assuming it means "and for it to be done by his own mother")
That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to...
...abuse the body of the woman/women...
...because she swallows the tragedy,...
...swallows it as if it were a right.

I think the line "That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women" is what (rightly IMO) has people up in arms, and if he doesn't explicitly mention rape, it's certainly one reasonable interpretation of what he said

the bit in bold in my intewpretation means the actual abortion itself is the licence given to abuse their body.

reasonable hysterical you mean.

why didn't the OP use the word he actually said?.... artistic licence and all that jazz.

disgusting really.

Delirium · 11-01-2012 3:39pm

28064212 wrote: »

I think the line "That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women" is what (rightly IMO) has people up in arms, and if he doesn't explicitly mention rape, it's certainly one reasonable interpretation of what he said

^^

@thebullkf - That's the reasoning behind choosing the title I went with.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:41pm

koth wrote: »

^^

@thebullkf - That's the reasoning behind choosing the title I went with.

so he doesn't mention rape, but you state it as fact that he does

Dades · 11-01-2012 3:41pm

This must be what interpreting the bible must be like...

It doesn't specifically mention rape, but it's heavy enough to suggest it, or at least be condemned for it's fire and brimstone.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:42pm

Penn wrote: »

You raise some fair points. But while it doesn't say 'rape', what would you take from this part of the sentence:

Absolute licence.... to abuse her body.... without restrictions....

hi penn, see above. i'm actually amazed everyone sees it this way- goes to show what a misleading title can influence.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:45pm

Dades wrote: »

This must be what interpreting the bible must be like...

It doesn't specifically mention rape, but it's heavy enough to suggest it, or at least be condemned for it's fire and brimstone.

i wouldn't know Dades- either all religon is right or its all wrong.

as a famous man once said:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

11-01-2012 3:45pm

thebullkf wrote: »

the bit in bold in my intewpretation means the actual abortion itself is the licence given to abuse their body.

How are you coming to that conclusion? "That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women".

thebullkf wrote: »

reasonable hysterical you mean.

why didn't the OP use the word he actually said?.... artistic licence and all that jazz.

disgusting really.

You think the thread title would be less inflammatory if it read "Spanish bishop says it's okay to abuse the body of women who've had abortions"?

MagicMarker · 11-01-2012 3:45pm

thebullkf, what does ''without limits'' mean to you?

Delirium · 11-01-2012 3:46pm

thebullkf wrote: »

so he doesn't mention rape, but you state it as fact that he does

"That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women" for me would include rape since the term "without limits" was used.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:49pm

ye're misssing the point, he doesn't say because she had an abortion that gives men the right..... the abortion itself is the right shes given to man /whoever to abuse her body.

Monumental difference.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:50pm

eh why did ye delete your posts...?

11-01-2012 3:54pm

thebullkf wrote: »

ye're misssing the point, he doesn't say because she had an abortion that gives men the right..... the abortion itself is the right shes given to man /whoever to abuse her body.

Monumental difference.

But you've just totally changed the text. "Eso" means "that", not "she". The act of abortion in the previous sentence is referred to by "Eso". "That [act] gives men the licence....", not "she gives men the licence..."

Penn · 11-01-2012 3:55pm

thebullkf wrote: »

ye're misssing the point, he doesn't say because she had an abortion that gives men the right..... the abortion itself is the right shes given to man /whoever to abuse her body.

Monumental difference.

But that isn't what he says. Unless something got lost in translation, he's using past tense to refer to the abortion.

'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so' reads to me that she gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body because she has already had an abortion.

I would say it's possible you're right, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 3:58pm

the irony ...:rolleyes:

talking about changing text, tenses.. when the word Rape was used in the title.

my reading of what he meant is obviously different from yours.

lets leave it at that shall we:)

Ellis Dee · 11-01-2012 4:00pm

Tea_Bag wrote: »

can't wait for the Vatican to defend this one.

Don't worry! You won't have to wait long.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Vatican only takes its time when it comes to protecting kids.

thebullkf · 11-01-2012 4:01pm

Penn wrote: »

But that isn't what he says. Unless something got lost in translation, he's using past tense to refer to the abortion.

'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so' reads to me that she gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body because she has already had an abortion.

I would say it's possible you're right, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

hhmmmm...... my reading is completely different tbh.

good point though. (still think its wrong though!)

11-01-2012 4:02pm

thebullkf wrote: »

the irony ...:rolleyes:

talking about changing text, tenses.. when the word Rape was used in the title.

I didn't set the thread title.

And interpreting "abuse of a woman's body without limits" as rape is a lot different to changing "that" (referring to an act) to "she", especially when it means the difference between a consensual act and an act of abuse.

Ellis Dee · 11-01-2012 4:08pm

koth wrote: »

"That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman/women" for me would include rape since the term "without limits" was used.

I agree. As I have already written on another thread about this matter, "absolute licence, without limits, to abuse the body of the woman" covers a fair bit of ground.:rolleyes:

Not everyone who still listens to members of the hierarchy of the kiddy-fiddler church and lives according to the guidelines of that organisation is necessarily endowed with a Jesuitical mastery of the finer nuances of semantics and sophistry and it can not be ruled out that he would interpret the Archbishop's words as giving him the right to slip her the sausage whether she wants it or not.:):)

Carlos Orange · 11-01-2012 4:12pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can we have a little competition? Whoever guesses their response wins!

I'm going to guess they'll go with the 'completely ignore' option.

Well it is from 2 years ago so I imagine they won't even notice it enough to have to ignore it.

BrensBenz · 11-01-2012 4:15pm

Hold on, lads – the clue is in the title, i.e. “bishop”, i.e. a man in fancy dress, mangling the words and intent of JC.
Other that the meeja, who scour the world looking for cr@p like this, who the Hell actually cares anymore what some bishop says? Do you really think that hoards of men are going to justify brutality of any sort based on the ramblings of some airhead bishop, who has probably lost whatever marbles he ever had during his decades of isolation from the real world? Do you really think that, by quoting his outrageous rant, any court is going to dismiss an accused? So, relax! It might sell a few papers but it definitely shows the meeja in a clearer light, and our unerring insistence on falling for their manipulations.

Penn · 11-01-2012 4:23pm

thebullkf wrote: »

hhmmmm...... my reading is completely different tbh.

good point though. (still think its wrong though!)

For me, one of the key words in the sentence is "man". Gives "a man" absolute licence... etc. If he said person, or doctor, or something else, I could read it as being the abortion doctor. But specifically "man", used in conjunction with abusing her body... I don't know.

But like you said, peoples readings of it are different.

Doctor Jimbob · 11-01-2012 4:49pm

psinno wrote: »

Well it is from 2 years ago so I imagine they won't even notice it enough to have to ignore it.

So....they ignored it?

Dades · 11-01-2012 4:50pm

BrensBenz wrote: »

Hold on, lads – the clue is in the title, i.e. “bishop”, i.e. a man in fancy dress, mangling the words and intent of JC.

I'm inclined to agree. If you have enough bishops ruling their own particular roosts, there's always going to be one nutty one somewhere giving a juicy soundbyte for a slow news day.

However the interesting bit is always what the Vatican say (or don't say) in response.

robindch · 11-01-2012 5:43pm

koth wrote: »

Are the RCC having some sort of "say the most offensive sh*t possible" competition this year??

Possible, but unlikely since the article above was posted on 2012-01-04, but the sermon is dated ~two years ago, on 2009-12-20.

While the first bit of that second para seems clear(ish), the bish does go on to say that the only cure is the chrisitan form of forgiveness and that seems to be at odds with the license to abuse that he's apparently just granted. If the translations are accurate.

My spanish is pretty crap at the best of times, but I've just asked a friend of mine who lives a few miles south of Granada to clarify -- let's see!

Spanish bishop makes inflammatory comments about women who've aborted <title-edited>

Comments