nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

looksee

Mod: Ok folks, I know the paedophile thing is very relevant, but lets not get into describing every priest as a paedophile, it is a generalisation too far, and in fact weakens argument - as can be seen with the more wild and aggressive anti-atheism generalisations that are introduced by some of our religious contributors.

frag420

Great minds think alike my friend!!

looksee wrote: »

So there are numerous cases of people thinking they have, for example, been married for the last number of years who are not in fact married at all as the person who married them was 'not a priest'. They are therefore living in sin and should not be taking Communion.

And there are numbers of children who are supposedly baptised (yes I am aware that anyone can baptise, but not anyone can issued a cert, you have to be a priest to do that) but the baptismal certificate, which they need in many cases to get into school, is fraudulent. Hm. Should the church not be dealing with that?

Edit - frag420 I see you got there before me

MrPudding

realitykeeper wrote: »

A "pedophile priest" is not a "priest" any more than a "non priest" is a "priest." Of course it is a problem if non priests are infiltrating the church through ordination based on purgery.

OK, now I am confused. I thought priest was an acronym for Paedophile Ring In Every Small Town. Are you saying that is not the case?

MrP

Delirium

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so. A pedophile is not a priest and vice versa. No overlap is possible unless you change the meaning of the word priest. You see, my view of the world is rather rigid in some respects. When a narrative takes hold in public discourse, my view of the world remains completely unaltered by that.

Yet here you are changing the meaning of priest to exclude any priest that has molested children. :rolleyes:

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so. A pedophile is not a priest and vice versa. No overlap is possible unless you change the meaning of the word priest. You see, my view of the world is rather rigid in some respects. When a narrative takes hold in public discourse, my view of the world remains completely unaltered by that.

So there are numerous cases of people thinking they have, for example, been married for the last number of years who are not in fact married at all as the person who married them was 'not a priest'. They are therefore living in sin and should not be taking Communion.

And there are numbers of children who are supposedly baptised (yes I am aware that anyone can baptise, but not anyone can issued a cert, you have to be a priest to do that) but the baptismal certificate, which they need in many cases to get into school, is fraudulent. Hm. Should the church not be dealing with that?

Edit - frag420 I see you got there before me

frag420

realitykeeper wrote: »

A "pedophile priest" is not a "priest" any more than a "non priest" is a "priest." Of course it is a problem if non priests are infiltrating the church through ordination based on purgery.

So are you saying when someone joins the priesthood out of school that they are already a paedophile?

If they are not a priest then should any of the sacraments that they bestowed on people from marriage to baptism ect be null and void now in your eyes?

Should we now dig up bodies of those buried in consecrated grounds by paedo priests as they were not real priests in the first place?

frag420

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so. A pedophile is not a priest and vice versa. No overlap is possible unless you change the meaning of the word priest. You see, my view of the world is rather rigid in some respects. When a narrative takes hold in public discourse, my view of the world remains completely unaltered by that.

I think that may be the problem...

HAve a look at this, some morning reading for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

Even the Catholic Church as far back as 1962 admitted that priests molest children, are you saying the Catholic church is wrong and you are correct?

1962 - Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, addressed to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite", the Holy Office laid down procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or bishops) of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents; its rules were more specific than the generic ones in the Code of Canon Law.

realitykeeper

frag420 wrote: »

Please explain this?

Have you proof that priests do not molest children because there are several hundred news links proving you wrong if you care to have a search online!?

If priests do not molest children then why has the Vatican admitted their is a problem with peadophile priests? Why do they move them around from parish to parish if there is no such thing as Paedophile priests?

A "pedophile priest" is not a "priest" any more than a "non priest" is a "priest." Of course it is a problem if non priests are infiltrating the church through ordination based on purgery.

realitykeeper

Delirium wrote: »

Some priests do. To state otherwise is to be ignorant of facts or dishonest.

Not so. A pedophile is not a priest and vice versa. No overlap is possible unless you change the meaning of the word priest. You see, my view of the world is rather rigid in some respects. When a narrative takes hold in public discourse, my view of the world remains completely unaltered by that.

frag420

Please explain this?

Have you proof that priests do not molest children because there are several hundred news links proving you wrong if you care to have a search online!?

If priests do not molest children then why has the Vatican admitted their is a problem with peadophile priests? Why do they move them around from parish to parish if there is no such thing as Paedophile priests?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Priests do not molest children.

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, there can be an overlap of priests and golfers but not of priests and pedophiles.

realitykeeper

frag420 wrote: »

No Catholic priests play golf, only golfers do that!!

You're argument takes the prize for the most retarded thing have read in a long long time and I have been known to read the letters page in The Catholic News!!

Tell me whats your view of a true priest, someone who lives a life just like Jesus did perhaps? Genuinely curious about this?

No, there can be an overlap of priests and golfers but not of priests and pedophiles.

Delirium

realitykeeper wrote: »

Priests do not molest children.

Some priests do. To state otherwise is to be ignorant of facts or dishonest.

realitykeeper

Delirium wrote: »

You may not view them as 'true' priests but priests did molest children.

Priests do not molest children.

realitykeeper

King Mob wrote: »

Does this also include people who defend, shelter and cover up child abuse?
If so, then I'm not sure there's many priests left in the church at all...

It includes sinners certainly but casting judgement is a double edged sword.

nozzferrahhtoo

frag420 wrote: »

Tell me whats your view of a true priest, someone who lives a life just like Jesus did perhaps? Genuinely curious about this?

Seems to be defined as "Anyone I do not need to disown in a given moment". Basically it allows him disown anyone who calls into question anything about the institution, or its staff, that he holds so dear.

frag420

No Catholic priests play golf, only golfers do that!!

You're argument takes the prize for the most retarded thing have read in a long long time and I have been known to read the letters page in The Catholic News!!

Tell me whats your view of a true priest, someone who lives a life just like Jesus did perhaps? Genuinely curious about this?

realitykeeper wrote: »

No Catholic Priest has ever abused a child. Only pedophiles do that.

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

No. A true priest is a holy man of God so that eliminates all pedophiles.

Ah. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Religion does that - in spades. One of its very worst attributes.

robindch

Delirium wrote: »

You may not view them as 'true' priests but priests did molest children.

realitykeeper does, possibly unintentionally, introduce an interesting point in the world of catholic moral teaching.

The RCC defines two types of excommunication - latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae, with a splendidly Jesuitical distinction between them. Latae sententiae is a state of excommunication which happens without the intervention of Vatican officials at the moment of commission by a catholic of some prohibited act. Ferendae sententiae is a state of excommunication which is actively declared by the Vatican after it's ruled on whether a catholic is guilty of carrying some prohibited act.

The list of prohibited acts is here - but I don't believe that child abuse is listed or implied - the majority of the offences which incur one type of excommunication or the other relate to the internal hierarchy and rituals of the church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Excommunicable_offenses

If the RCC added child abuse to the list of canonical crimes incurring a sentence of latae sententiae, then a priest who committed child abuse would be excommunicated at the point at which the abuse started, and the priest would instantaneously cease being a priest. And realitykeeper would therefore be correct.

More entertainingly, it seems that latae sententiae is essentially an attempt to legislate passive aggression into (canon) law.

Delirium

realitykeeper wrote: »

No. A true priest is a holy man of God so that eliminates all pedophiles. I should point out that I strongly agree with a particular aspect of Judaism and Zoroastrianism which requires one to separate good from evil. Indeed, Christ also made this part of his mission. Luke 12:51

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

You may not view them as 'true' priests but priests did molest children.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

No. A true priest is a holy man of God so that eliminates all pedophiles.

Does this also include people who defend, shelter and cover up child abuse?
If so, then I'm not sure there's many priests left in the church at all...

CabanSail

realitykeeper wrote: »

No. A true priest is a holy man of God so that eliminates all pedophiles.

The title of Priest is bestowed by the church.

If they had to be truly "Holy" then there would no Priests at all. That may be a good thing.

realitykeeper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wow. You really do live in an alternate reality.

No. A true priest is a holy man of God so that eliminates all pedophiles. I should point out that I strongly agree with a particular aspect of Judaism and Zoroastrianism which requires one to separate good from evil. Indeed, Christ also made this part of his mission. Luke 12:51

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

gctest50

realitykeeper wrote: »

Granted non-Catholic behavior has besmirched the Holy Catholic Church. Indeed, bad things do happen in the world generally as Stephen Fry points out in this interview but nonetheless, God is good. I think this world should be seen as a state of purgatory, suffering comes as part of the package but humanity should be about love.

............

Fry’s scorn is for the concept of monotheism and a god who designs a cruel environment in which to live.

“Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him?!

realitykeeper wrote: »

............

but nonetheless, God is good.

............

He's a sexist racist sadistic murderous c*nt :

even the thing you quoted :

“Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind,” Fry says. “They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.

“It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.”

CabanSail

realitykeeper wrote: »

No Catholic Priest has ever abused a child. Only pedophiles do that.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Seem to recall quite a few Roman Catholic Priests who have been convicted of sexual offences involving children. Do they cease to be a Priest when they become a sex offender?

realitykeeper

MrPudding wrote: »

God's Holy Catholic Church is actually evidence of the non-existence of your god. If god did actually exist then there is no way it would allow the continued existence of that despicable organisation.

Granted non-Catholic behavior has besmirched the Holy Catholic Church. Indeed, bad things do happen in the world generally as Stephen Fry points out in this interview but nonetheless, God is good. I think this world should be seen as a state of purgatory, suffering comes as part of the package but humanity should be about love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

No Catholic Priest has ever abused a child. Only pedophiles do that.

Wow. You really do live in an alternate reality.

realitykeeper

frag420 wrote: »

Well considering they are full of love for the unborn but happy to cover up the systematic abuse of actual living children and shield the abusers from prosecution I think they are worthy of a gratuitous attack as are those that agree with them!!

No Catholic Priest has ever abused a child. Only pedophiles do that.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Her reference to the legal advisor has left me wondering what the advisor's advice to her predecessor was on the issue and why is there a sudden necessity to change tack on publication contents.

Here's a more detailed account of the episode:
http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/ucdsu-retracts-information-about-abortion-from-handbooks/

The abortion information in the original handbook is almost identical to what was published in last year’s edition, with the exception that students are directed towards a specific website to obtain abortion pills online.

Before the original handbook was printed, all five sabbatical officers viewed the book and were able to make edits they felt necessary. Whilst Ascough claims she did not know providing the information on page 59 was illegal, the remaining sabbatical officers were in full knowledge of the illegality of that content.
Ascough claims that it was only after the handbooks were printed and had arrived at UCD that a member of staff raised the issue of the possibility of the content being illegal, it is at this point that she sought legal advice from the union’s lawyer.

Hotblack Desiato

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I ENJOY it when the anti abortion speaker has nothing but labels to cling to and can not string an actual anti abortion argument together. So the more posts of this ilk you supply us with, the better I feel.

The exclusive use of emotive language betrays the reliance on emotive argument rather than logical argument.

Hence the posters on one side calling for rights and choice, on the other side pictures of miscarried baby parts.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

To quote a p.ie poster,

Her reference to the legal advisor has left me wondering what the advisor's advice to her predecessor was on the issue and why is there a sudden necessity to change tack on publication contents.