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

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

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.

If one side can abuse language, say by calling abortion murder, surely the other side can use some artistic licence...

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

If one side can abuse language, say by calling abortion murder, surely the other side can use some artistic licence...

So long as it's labelled, perhaps, as ars gratia artis or a relevant smiley or emoticon, that's probably fine within context. But a post declared without such a reminder might be mistaken, and that would be a pity

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

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.

It also seems that your definition of the word "priest", as it applies to catholics, is rather unused by the Vatican - unless I've missed something of course.

Could you please point to that part of Canon Law which defines that child abuse incurs an automatic penalty of latae sententiae?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

So long as it's labelled, perhaps, as ars gratia artis or a relevant smiley or emoticon, that's probably fine within context. But a post declared without such a reminder might be mistaken, and that would be a pity

Mea culpa.

MrP

eviltwin

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.

The priest that married my parents was a child abuser. Does that mean my parents marriage isn't valid?

realitykeeper

frag420 wrote: »

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?

The answer to your first question is that is a possibility. The answer to the second and third questions is no.

realitykeeper

Delirium wrote: »

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

No, you are changing the meaning of the word priest by including individuals who have molested children.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

The answer to your first question is that is a possibility. The answer to the second and third questions is no.

How do you come to that conclusion? If a paedophile is not a priest how can the sacraments be 'legal'? If someone impersonated a priest would the sacrament he performed be proper also, on the basis that the recipients believed it was?

Hotblack Desiato

Can we have a 'stupid' thread to move stuff like this into? :rolleyes:

Anyway, eh, abortion. March for Choice tomorrow week.

aloyisious

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, you are changing the meaning of the word priest by including individuals who have molested children.

The snag with your position/understanding is that until an ordained priest commits a criminal offence of sexually assaulting a child, he remains what you define as a priest. The actuality of the situation, as experienced here in this country, is that ordained priests who committed sexual assaults against children were knowingly kept on as ordained priests by the church, they were not defrocked or disenfranchised from holy orders.

Until the church accepts fully it was 100% wrong in its failure to abide by its duty to God and atones for it, then it shames all priests, EDIT, and for the same reason, the church adherents.

Now having made that point, I am not using it to bash the church. It can do that itself in self mortification if it chooses.

On the issue of abortion or termination here, I have not noticed the church here excommunicating any doctors for offending against church law by performing such operations so one might tend to believe that the church is ok with such operations, even if it is not with 100% approval. I haven't heard of any churchman asking that such doctors have their licenses revoked/annulled by the medical council either.

In line with your view on the automatic voiding of priestly title from a priest [you are no longer a priest] who carried out child sexual offences, do you have a similar view in regard to doctors who perform abortions here, that they have voided the right to be called doctors as a result?

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, you are changing the meaning of the word priest by including individuals who have molested children.

And you are ignoring people - including me - who are asking you legitimate questions. Presumably because you realize that answering them will undermine your counterfactual position.

In this forum, that's essentially trolling which, in the main, isn't tolerated.

Please start entertaining discussion on the points which you are making, lest a moderator be forced to engage in some light discipline your-direction-wards.

Delirium

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, you are changing the meaning of the word priest by including individuals who have molested children.

]

Wrong. All I've said is that being a priest doesn't preclude someone from molesting a child.There are numerous scandals that are evidence of this.

You are the one altering definitions, i.e. stating the definition excludes priests that molest children. Feel free to provide a link that supports your refinement of the definition.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Until the church accepts fully it was 100% wrong in its failure to abide by its duty to God and atones for it, then it shames all priests, EDIT, and for the same reason, the church adherents.

Forget that nonsense, it's compliance with the criminal law that we and they should be concerned with.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Forget that nonsense, it's compliance with the criminal law that we and they should be concerned with.

Exactly. Fcuk its duty to an imaginary being, compliance with the criminal law a common decency is what it needs.

MrP

Samaris

That argument that no priest can be a paedophile wins today's prize for stupidest thing I've seen -despite- having already looked up the Trump headlines.

Regarding the auto-excommunication though, what does other members of the Church covering up for them and moving them to a new parish do to that? At that stage, the Church itself knows, and could excommunicate said priest extremely thoroughly (and defrock him). If they don't, does that mean the auto-excommunication doesn't take effect regardless of the crime being committed? Or is everyone involved in helping the guilty priest also auto-excommunicated for covering up crimes against children?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Forget that nonsense, it's compliance with the criminal law that we and they should be concerned with.

Won't argue that point with you and Mr P. Mine was to the O/P and his allegation that God's Church was under attack, by pointing out the problem was indoor. We all know canon law rules ecclesiastical minds, not civil law.

aloyisious

Watched 1st few minutes of Tim Jackson and Sean Moncrieff [on F/B] at Newstalk discussing his hunger strike in support of the keep the 8th amendment. Tim told Sean that he is continuing the hunger strike but not always outside at the Dail, moving indoors at a friends house in the evening as he could catch a cold or flu in the outside air [or words to that effect]. He also said he would continue his hunger strike until the Oireachtas abortion committee and Leo Varadkar watched a video of an abortion before deciding on a referendum to what happens the victims. The video was shot on, apparently, the 2nd day of the reported hunger strike.

If one is interested in the [sponsored] Tim Jackson - Newstalk interview video, it is probably available online. I won't promo his POV any further.

Edit/add-on.... ROSA F/B page posted a link to a Sunday Times article in which The Times claims Tim Jackson works at an unregulated crisis pregnancy agency, Gianni Care. Surprisingly I can't find said agency through google. The Times mentioned in the link may be the Irish edition of the Times. The link given is one restricted to a pay-for-view readership but I'll post it anyway as there may PFV people here.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv3IOSi7_WAhXJI8AKHVx5BggQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Fedition%2Fireland%2Fanti-abortion-activist-works-for-crisis-pregnancy-agency-0zdg3jk0j&usg=AFQjCNE9Kd3ruOdgoc_rT47oYVVVqW1EYA

aloyisious

The irish Times is reporting that Leo Varadkar is eyeing up May or June for the referendum on the 8th, along with several other items. There is one peculiar thing about the I/T report, that is it's headline: Abortion referendum set for May or June of next year
Varadkar will bring indicative dates of various polls coinciding with elections to Cabinet. When did we have elections to cabinet? There is no further mention of that in the report. There is mention of further Ref's in Oct 2018 on Presidential Election day.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwipmKOUqMDWAhUHKcAKHSQKDxkQFggqMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fabortion-referendum-set-for-may-or-june-of-next-year-1.3232397&usg=AFQjCNGp_Qeep61EulPrMjT9mX_yx0xYgQ

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

Or is everyone involved in helping the guilty priest also auto-excommunicated for covering up crimes against children?

Hard to know - either the current or the previous pope issued a number of statements on the issue, but so far as I recall, none of them were binding as none of them had the status of dogma.

I don't recall that they were especially consistent either - some prose calling for mandatory reporting to national authorities, and some prose not calling for it, on the basis that some local churches were concerned about police corruption and political shenanigans.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Varadkar will bring indicative dates of various polls coinciding with elections to Cabinet. When did we have elections to cabinet? There is no further mention of that in the report. There is mention of further Ref's in Oct 2018 on Presidential Election day.

Comma failure.

Varadkar will bring indicative dates of various polls, coinciding with elections, to Cabinet.

Indicative dates for upcoming referendums and future polls will be discussed by Ministers on Tuesday, with a number of votes possibly taking place on the same day as a presidential election.

One referendum which could coincide with a potential presidential election in October 2018 is the long-promised vote on the constitutional provision relating to the role of women in the home.

Also slated for that date are a referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy and perhaps a vote on directly elected mayors.
...
Other referendums could take place alongside the local and European elections in June 2019, Mr Varadkar will tell colleagues.

These could include a poll on reducing the voting age to 16 and a referendum to reduce the waiting time required for a divorce from four years to two.

Samaris

...What a difference a comma makes

I was confused by that too.

recedite

Technically, we are not even supposed to have a "Cabinet", let alone the election of one :pac:
There's no mention in the Constitution of one. That group of ministers around a table is simply called "the Government".

aloyisious

The cabinet Government decided last night that the referendum to delete or retain the 8th amendment will be held as a stand-alone referendum next May or June... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjH5q_p6cPWAhXrDMAKHSBnClYQFgg0MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fgovernment-agrees-on-seven-referendums-in-2018-and-2019-1.3234818&usg=AFQjCNHmxurFVh93JZ4zsExEUdLwFZZKCQ

recedite

Mr Varadkar said he was advised against holding a series of votes on the one day as it may cause confusion for some people.

"Oh dear, was that blasphemy or abortion I just voted for? I forgot to read the question."
Are people really that thick?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Are people really that thick?

As the Brexit vote showed - as well as innumerable Irish referendums - yes, they really are

recedite

Ah come on now; you may not agree with the way they voted, but I think they fully intended to vote that way.

aloyisious

Counting down, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, the last two being maybe's.... The irony is beautiful.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

"Oh dear, was that blasphemy or abortion I just voted for? I forgot to read the question."
Are people really that thick?

I think "confusion" is the wrong word. "Exhausation" is probably more apt.

What happens is that one of the issues consumes virtually all of the airtime, so when the vote comes nobody knows anything about what they're voting on except for that one. And when people don't know about or understand something in a referendum, they vote "no".

You may not remember but when the marriage equality vote was taken, there was a second referendum on lowering the permitted age presidential candidates.

It was barely talked about, and most people took the facile, "Pssht, sure you'd have one o' dem youtoobe fellas in the Aras. No way!" approach.

When if you think about it, it was two votes on the right of individuals to equal treatment - one based on sexuality, one based on age. So they both should have passed. But because the latter was barely even looked at, people voted "no" by default.

I have zero doubt that in any scenario, abortion will be the "main" issue. So having any other referendum on the same day or even in the radius of this one, is pointless.

flaneur

That, or maybe a lot or people genuinely didn't see any argument in favour of removing the age limit?

Samaris

I would prefer several contraversial referenda at the same time in a way. I am -not- looking forward to eight months or more of signs showing (often) miscarried foetus' representing "part-birth abortion", eight months of rage and vitriol, eight months of division and eight months of bat**** crazy insistance that to vote yes means the law will now FORCE women to have abortions.

Remember the marriage referendum? It became about surrogacy, despite that not even being remotely relevent. It became about how two parents of the same sex would be taking the children from God-fearing opposite-sex couples and all the rest of the lunacy. Either Lisbon or Nice managed to produce the forced-abortions thing too. I'd bet a tenner that it will come up again now and it's going to annoy me as much as it did back then too.