Friday, March 06, 2009

More Catholic Villainy

SUZIE-ALL CAPS is pro-child rape. By her own logic, supporting the right to choose makes one pro-abortion thus denying said clinical treatment to an incestuously raped and impregnated pre-teen must mean that she is in favour of raping children. Yay catholic values!

Gosh, that little girl is lucky we're on the new testament. Time was the family would have stoned the little harlot to death in the public square. Catholic shari'ah is just so much better than the other brand of insane theocratic evil. What is it with catholicism and kiddie rape anyway? Fucking twisted evil death cult.

52 comments:

s said...

SUZIE is crazy, but you're not much better.

Let's see: against abortion = for raping children.

And while we're at it, there are still places where the whip or stone rape victims, but none of those are Catholic countries. Where's your moral outrage about that?

MgS said...

S:

In the incident that CC is referring to, a 9 year old girl got pregnant after being raped by her step father - repeatedly.

The church in Brazil goes off on a bender an excommunicates anyone involved in the abortion. They have yet to say word one about the child's rapist.

Stew on that one.

liberal supporter said...

SUZIE is crazy, but you're not much better.

Had you been following, you would know SUZIE had just got through claiming that pro-choice means pro-abortion. At the same time, she insists that anti-abortion people should be called "pro-life" even though many of those are quite happy with the murder of abortion providers. Since excommunication is essentially a death sentence on one's soul, the church in Brazil is also favouring death, while claiming to be pro-life.

We could call them pro-choice too, since they support the right of rapists to choose the mothers of their children.

Ti-Guy said...

And while we're at it, there are still places where the whip or stone rape victims, but none of those are Catholic countries. Where's your moral outrage about that?

I really want people who say things like this to just die, already. Seriously, I've had enough.

liberal supporter said...

Meanwhile, poor neo is planning to spend yet another night stalking his own blog and he's looking for company....

psa said...

hi s, thanks for dropping by. here's my take on these complex issues. religious fundamentalism is a mental disorder. sufferers from this disease act horribly to other humans and claim to do so in the name of whatever the fuck brand of gawd they are hooked on. with the exception of the tantric colonies, who seemed to be on to a pretty good thing *nudge nudge*, religion seems to make people harsh, narrow minded and judgmental bastards with no shortage of cut throat evil wrapped in a prayer. the catholic brand is more notably repugnant for its long history and its power in western cultures. if you want kiddie fucking, they're your guys. the evil of that branch of idolatry in no way diminishes the vile acts carried out in the name of any other religion.

all that said, it is also noted that there are lots and lots of people that find solace and comfort in the pursuit of their make believe faiths. the vast majority of those people do not succumb to the horrid dictates of their jealous gawds. here in "christian countries" women are simply marginalized as the vessels of original sin, instructed that their submission to gawd, their father and eventually husband is their lot in life and they'd best shut the fuck up and accept it. when they have the misfortune of an unwanted pregnancy our zealots insist that they cede bodily autonomy to a cluster of cells.

a 9 year old child was repeatedly raped by her step father and became pregnant by him, carrying twins. the rancid old men of cloth tried to prevent the termination of that pregnancy, then resorted to excommunicating the doctors and the child's mother, all the while ignoring the crimes of the step father. well, perhaps it would have been worse had they whipped the girl too. considering catholic history it isn't out of the question. after all, they have a pretty considerable record in the raping of vulnerable children and the active, long term cover up of same by their own ministers of gawd's word.

so s, go buy yourself some good old fashioned context. or fuck off. whatever, you sanctimonious douche.

psa said...

by the way s, was this so very difficult for you to parse or are you just a disingenuous fuck?

"Catholic shari'ah is just so much better than the other brand of insane theocratic evil."

emphasis added for the hard of thinking.

s said...

MgS:

I am familiar with the story. It is vague on details, other than demonstrating that the bishop showed an appalling lack of sensitivity.

LS:

Excommunication is not a death sentence on the soul. Look it up.

Bi-Guy:

Go fuck yourself.

psa:

Dealing with criminal activity is what the police are for.

Context? You don't give a shit about context, just like you don't give a shit about girls who get raped. All you're interested in is bashing Catholics. Go help Bi-Guy fuck himself.

Toe said...

Oh and look everybody the Catlick faithful want the stepdad to be fudgepacked at every opportunity, cuz he's the only scumbag in this Catlick drama, oy.
http://community.babycenter.com/talk/a6357135/lurker_posting_9_yr_old_abortion_was_is_wrong?cpg=3

I need a drink when the 'faithful' start to mob for fudgepacking.

Dharma Satya said...

Gee "s", if that is indeed your real name, I'm guessing you're a foaming at the mouth, raving, deluded, insane, hate filled, loveless misogynist... or as they are usually called: Catholic. Amirite?

...you should also look into going outside for a few hours to play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself. It's plain to all that you haven't even bothered to read the post, and since you've decided to make *such* a spectacular ass of yourself here, you might want to take it where the whole neighbourhood can watch your vacuous dickery so they, too, can point and laugh at how much of an asshat you're making yourself out to be.

psa said...

and you come to these conclusions how? i'm happy to bash the catholic church because as a child they were happy to bash me. i was beaten, debased and abused in the catholic school system so yes, i have a bit of a grudge there. sadly the catholic system seems to have recurring trouble with violence against children. it is a sordid and sinister cult. but to be clear, it is the church and its system that i oppose. there are millions of perfectly decent adherents. my mom was one.

in this instance, my comments are in context to suzanne's rhetorical attempt to conflate pro-choice as being the same as pro-abortion. nobody wants an abortion to occur. we would all rather have no abortions but those of us that aren't drunk on gawd understand that in cases of unwanted pregnancy the right to autonomy over one's body takes precedence. what's more, in this specific case suzanne has made it quite plain that her fervour for the foetus would have her force that child to carry the pregnancy to term or her death by physical trauma, whichever came first.

as a nine year old is unlikely to survive carrying twins to term and those twins are no more likely to survive, it is madness and cruelty to insist that the pregnancy not be terminated. so by suzanne's own logic insisting that the pregnancy not be terminated is equal and the same as being pro-child rape.

and how about keeping your homophobic stupidity to yourself. fuckwit.

MgS said...

S writes:

I am familiar with the story. It is vague on details, other than demonstrating that the bishop showed an appalling lack of sensitivity.

No, it wasn't lacking in details at all.

The RC dogma on this one is so far off base it's not even funny; and the silence with respect to the rapist is unconscionable as it amounts to tacit approval of not just rape, but rape of young children.

The medical practitioners were saving a young girl from what would likely have turned into a fatal pregnancy - so much for the "right to life". (Or did you have the illusion that a girl who had started to menstruate was also magically mature enough to carry twins to term?)

KEvron said...

"Where's your moral outrage about that?"

i'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.

KEvron

jj said...

I wonder what "s" stands for, because he's sure beating the same drum as "Stan" over at my place.

It never ceases to amaze me how adept people like "s" and "Stan" are at shifting the goalposts. I can only assume it's a skill developed over time after repeatedly finding themselves on the losing end of arguments.

s said...

psa:

Abuse wasn't just limited to just Catholic schools. Many more students have been abused in the public school system. Does that mean the public school system is a sordid and sinister cult? Organizations are made up of people, most of whom are decent. No doubt your mother would be thrilled to learn that she was part of a "fucking twisted evil death cult" and not smart enough to know it.

Suzanne's crazy, but only you conflate an anti-abortion stand with raping children.

And, as long as you insist on being an obsessive, ignorant asshole, I will insult you any way I see fit.

MsG:

Not lacking in details? Give your head a shake. Did the mother go to her priest first, or the police, or a doctor? How did the bishop try to stop the abortion? Did he write a letter, make a phone call or show up at the hospital? How do you know that the bishop didn't say anything about the rapist? What other things were going on in this household? Etc.

No, this whole sordid incident is the fault of that evil death cult, who BTW, actually didn't prevent the abortion from taking place.

KEvron said...

"this whole sordid incident is the fault of that evil death cult"

don't you find nyperbole to be a kind of straw man?

KEvron

KEvron said...

when the catholic church finally asks for forgiveness, then i'll forgive them, and not a moment before.

KEvron

jj said...

Speaking of catholics, get a load of this. Talk about swirling in the bowl.

jj said...

"who BTW, actually didn't prevent the abortion from taking place."

Not for lack of trying, "s".

But you're quite right to point out their ever-diminishing power, a trend that hopefully continues.

Ti-Guy said...

the catholic brand is more notably repugnant for its long history and its power in western cultures.

Oh, fuck off, PSA. All of Christianity is guilty of the sins committed by the church since before and after the Reformation.

Seriously, fuck you and CC and your anti-Catholic crap. Go after the Jews for a bit, why don't you and gives us a fucking break.

Kusotarre said...

Who says "we all don't want abortions to occur"?

I don't give a shit if a woman (or especially a 9yr old girl) have some unqanted growths shucked out of them in a sterile, safe manner.

You know why?

FETUSES AREN'T PEOPLE.

They don't have love, hate, desires, memories, or plans.

It's the same reason I am perfectly fine with allowing parents to end the life of a young infant, if there is some rational reason to do so.

Personhood matters. It may be more fuzzy than artificial markers such as 3 months, quickening or birth, but at least it's logically (and humanely) consistent.

Kusotarre said...

Hey Ti-guy, he just said it was more notably repugnant, not that it was more extremely repugnant.

900 ft Jesus said...

s sid - "Excommunication is not a death sentence on the soul. Look it up."

true. It's worse than a death sentence - it's extreme eternal, constant, unrelenting torture. For ever and ever, without even death to relieve it. No amount of repenting, or begging for forgiveness will ever grant reprieve. And that is o the RCC god - labeled by Catholics as a loving father of all his children - deals out punishment for anyone involved in procuring and implementing an abortion. Well, according to some christian religions, anyway. The bible, which christians (including the RCC) claim is all true, and the word and law of their god, actually differentiates between a foetus and a human life - life for a life applies only if you kill a person outside of the womb. If you cause a woman to miscarry (and she looses her "fruits"), you only need to pay the husband whatever he thinks is fair. Cash, dude, or goats, I'm guessing, if you're light that month, but a life is only taken if the woman dies in the attack.

Take out an eye, you pay with an eye.

But a woman's fruits...just give the old man some money. You know, compensate him for all that hard work getting his old lady knocked up.

Oh yeah...look it up - Exodus 21.

So not only is the RCC lacking in even basic human compassion in this case, it's defying the law of its own god as written in the bible. And it's lying to its members.

This religion (and yes, others as well, but this case of a nine year old rape victim has to do with the RCC so that's what I'm focusing on here) sends two messages - forgive thy neighbour, yet demands an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Love your enemy, but mercilessly crush those the god tells you to crush - which is anyone the god, through his followers, according to the bible finds offensive for a number of reasons - unauthorized sex, failure to worship him above all others, occupying land that the god wants to give to one of his favourites...(look it up)

Taken with the bible as law and moral guide, it is a sick religion that provides an excuse for just about any act of cruelty or perversion. Not all catholics are vile, because many allow human compassion to override the absurd and cruel laws of their bible.

And the RCC is made up of all kinds - good and bad, like any group, but it sure does one hell of a job protecting its own deviants. You know, because it doesn't want people to think it has deviants.

I was raised catholic. There were some pretty decent priest in my diocese, and all of the decent ones had spent time as missionaries. That taught them the realities of families, the need for birth control especially in poor families, that women suffer if they are beaten physically or emotionally, and that sex is a positive and necessary part of bonding.

The hard core, by the bible priest were cruel and increased the suffering of their parishioners.

And they were damn creepy, as well.

Southern Quebec said...

It seems to me, and what do I know, that if the good Bishop was willing to let this little girl go to term, where she may or may not have died, that the Catholics are into a weird sort of sacrifice thing. But it's OK if yer Christian, right? Right?

wv: excer

psa said...

well ti, i'll admit that i took a leap into extreme hyperbole with this one. something that you are never guilty of, correct?

MgS said...

Give your head a shake. Did the mother go to her priest first, or the police, or a doctor? How did the bishop try to stop the abortion?

Does it fscking matter? The Church attempted to intervene through the courts to prevent the abortion.

An act which in itself is reprehensible.

When that didn't happen successfully, the church excommunicates every adult involved in the abortion itself.

You will note that there is a stunning silence about the rapist.

Sorry, but the church's own application of its very "right to life" dogma says that a pregnant female is nothing more than a vessel to bear children - even if it is likely to kill her.

And heaven help that poor child, it's not like she hasn't already been abused enough times by her stepfather's actions, no, the church has to symbolically rape her one more time by trying to step in.

I'm sorry, but I can't paint that one in a positive light for the RC Church - no how.

s said...

Since certain commentators are making claims about what excommunication is and can't be bothered to research, here is a definition from wiki:

According to the Catholic Church, excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty, but rather a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition in a more or less prominent member of the Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he or she "spreads division and confusion among the Faithful", it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that the person, by their own willful acts, has separated from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for re-entry into the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. Excommunication is never a merely "vindictive penalty" (designed solely to punish), but is always used as a "medicinal penalty" intended to pressure the person into changing their behaviour or statements, repent and return to full communion.

Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the eucharist or the other sacraments, but is normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.

Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible.[1]

In the Roman Catholic Church formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicant; the declaration of the reconciliation itself, by a priest or bishop empowered to do this; and then the reception of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In many cases, this whole process takes place within the privacy of the confessional and during the same act of confession.

Offenses that incur excommunication must be absolved by a priest or bishop empowered to lift the penalty. This is usually the local ordinary (bishop or vicar general) or priests whom the local ordinary designates (in many dioceses, most priests are empowered to lift most excommunications otherwise reserved to the bishop, notably that involved with abortion).

KEvron said...

"Go after the Jews for a bit, why don't you and gives us a fucking break."

corinthians?

KEvron

KEvron said...

that's all fine and good, s, but who do i have to rape to get excommunicated?

KEvron

s said...

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't have to rape anyone. You don't have to engage in criminal activties to be excommunicated, nor does engaging in criminal activities get you excommunicated.

MgS said...

So S,

Using your posted synopsis of RC logic, raping a child is a lesser offense than providing that child with an abortion to end a pregnancy that would likely end her life?

If that doesn't scream at you that something's vastly out of whack, I don't know what will.

Renee said...

S, I feel the need to point out that although the Catholic Church did nothing to stop THIS abortion, they have tried repeatedly to have abortion outlawed, or fought against its legalization. They felt the need to speak out against the abortion, so why didn't they feel the need to speak out against rape that lead to it? Because an obsolete hierarchical male-run organization has certain priorities, and women aren't it.

s said...

MsG:

The Catholic CHurch teaches that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Therefore condoning any abortion means condoning murder. Dogma can't be flexible without being hypocritical and unfortunately people like this girl are affected by this rigidity. Ultimately people have the free will to choose what to believe and to do what they feel is best for them. If that doesn't include the Catholic Church, then so be it.

Rene:

It's hard to know if the church said anything about the rape...the news stories I have read are sketchy about certain details.

MgS said...

Dogma can't be flexible without being hypocritical

Frankly, I think their failure to condemn the abuse of the stepfather is hypocrisy - of the worst possible kind.

It is long past time that the church started to rethink its approach to dogma.

If they can't, or won't, then they rightly deserve to be consigned to the wastebin of human history.

s said...

What proof do you have that they didn't condemn the rapist? Or are you suggesting that if the church did not condemn this crime, or any crime, that means it supports the criminal?

Naomi said...

Proof? Here: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html "He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life."

s said...

Although paraphrased, he still said the crime was deplorable. Is that not condemnation? Bear in mind that Catholic teaching says that abortion is murder. It may not be a sensitive thing say, but criminal courts also consider murder as a worse crime than rape.

MgS said...

I would argue that allowing a pregnancy to continue in an immature child's body is a different form of murder, but murder nonetheless.

... and no, I do not buy the "dying in childbirth is noble" line - that's nothing more than poorly phrased misogyny ... especially where a 9 year old girl is concerned.

LuLu said...

de⋅plor⋅a⋅ble [di-plawr-uh-buhl, -plohr-]
–adjective
1. causing or being a subject for grief or regret; lamentable.
2. causing or being a subject for censure, reproach, or disapproval; wretched; very bad.


My, my ... I wonder how the poor rapist will ever recover from such a scathing condemnation.

Now why don't you be a dear "s" and commence fucking off. Thanks bunches.

psa said...

"Ultimately people have the free will to choose what to believe and to do what they feel is best for them. If that doesn't include the Catholic Church, then so be it."

yet somehow that just doesn't stop the church from trying to legislate from the pulpit and shape laws that effect everybody, regardless of faith. we see their influence here in canada with threats against politicians to be excommunicated for going against the dictates of the church, to the detriment of the rest of the population. stick that smug lie back up your hoop s.

s said...

"My, my ... I wonder how the poor rapist will ever recover from such a scathing condemnation."

I don't know what you expect the bishop to do...gun him down? Assume for a moment that the rapist could be excommunicated. That means that he couldn't partake in communion until he confessed his sins. No doubt he's a sensitive fellow and I'm sure that would really, really hurt his feelings.

"...threats against politicians to be excommunicated for going against the dictates of the church, to the detriment of the rest of the population."

You mean like Chretien, Martin and Joe Biden? Funny thing is that nobody cares if they are Catholic politicians or not. These people choose to make a public show of being Catholic, yet they ignore the rules of the church in a very public manner. They need to decide what they believe in.

KEvron said...

"Sorry to disappoint you"

and dissppoint you did. abortion isn't a crime. but who said anything about "crime"?

KEvron

psa said...

"yet they ignore the rules of the church in a very public manner. They need to decide what they believe in."

the rules of the church do not and should never supersede the rule of law. but thanks for clearing up one thing for us s, since you seem to think that the church and its minions attempting to blackmail politicians is acceptable we can see that you'd be fine with a form of catholic shari'ah.

but note also that the church in all of its vain glory is breaking our laws and the covenants by which it is allowed to operate in our society. revenue canada rules forbid the church from taking part in political efforts. yet time and again it breaks binding laws and agreements. corruption, hypocrisy, lawlessness and aiding and abetting criminal behaviour is the hallmark of the cult you're busy scrambling to cover for. why should the church raise its voice against the rapist, after all, it has an affinity with child rape, a long and protected tradition one might say.

MgS said...

S writes: I don't know what you expect the bishop to do...

You just don't get it, do you?

The man has done much worse than just rape, he has violated the fundamental trust between parent and child in doing so. He has violated just about every tenet of parenthood I can imagine - including the very tenets the so-called "family values" crowd (of which the RC chruch counts itself one).

He deserves at least as strong a sanction against him as the church has raised against the adults who were busy saving a nine year old girl's life.

Speaking of which, therein lies the other end of the hypocrisy of the church's position. Speaking incessantly of the importance of safeguarding life, and the dignity of human life in particular, the church's actions make it quite clear that only applies to females until they are pregnant. After that, they no longer matter. Where's the church on the fact that a 9 year old's body isn't mature enough to carry one, much less two fetuses to term? Where is the church on the danger to the mother? Strangely silent.

Does that girl's life not have a value?

A bunch of supposedly celibate priests have no business trying to establish the rules of reproduction for the rest of us...especially not on behalf of women. It's plainly obvious from this incident that they simply have no clue.

s said...

psa:

The rules of the church only apply to Catholics, so the solution is simple...leave the church if you don't agree with the rules.

Perhaps you should do a little research into what sort of political activity is allowed for religious organizations before claiming that they are breaking the law.

MsG:

I DO get it. Note that earlier I wrote that the bishop showed an appalling lack of sensitivity. What you don't seem to get it that rape is not on the list for excommunication, that the bisop has no authority to put it on the list, and that this is something that is left to the courts.

MgS said...

What you don't seem to get it that rape is not on the list for excommunication, that the bisop has no authority to put it on the list, and that this is something that is left to the courts.

Got it. So raping a child and leaving her pregnant is just fine by the dogma, and saving that girls life by giving her an abortion is grounds for excommunication.

So much for the "pro life" culture!

The Bishop is still so far off the deep end of wrong on this one, it's not even funny.

s said...

It's not "fine"; it's still a "mortal sin" but it is not grounds for excommunication. In both cases the person responsible would be in a situation where they are not allowed to partake in communion until they have confessed their sins and received absolution. Excommunication makes this issue public...but it only applies to certain actions, among them desecrating the host, violence against the pope and abortion.

The perpetrator in this case has demonstrated that he has no conscience, so why do people keep insisting that he be excommunicated? It won't make any difference. On the other hand, this could have been handled better by the church since now they appear insensitive at the very least.

MgS said...

The perpetrator in this case has demonstrated that he has no conscience, so why do people keep insisting that he be excommunicated?

Since the fuckwit bishop decided to make a public statement about the abortion (which, ironically saves the girl from dying as a result of the pregnancy), he's said very little or nothing about the rapist.

The implication? Child rape good, abortion very bad - even if it's to save a very young, pregnant girl from a slow, agonizing death - from being RAPED!

... and you wonder why there's outrage?

s said...

No, I understand why there is outrage. But we seem to be going in circles here. First of all, no sane person condones child rape. The bishop said it was deplorable, so I'm not sure why you think that stronger words, or even excommunication, would make a difference. Secondly, abortion is considered to be murder according to catholic teaching. This is why the abortion was felt to be a worse crime than the rape, and criminal courts also normally consider murder to be worse.

The bishop didn't handle this well by becoming so publically involved, but the problem is that he he would be condoning "murder" if he advocated abortion for this girl.

MgS said...

This is why the abortion was felt to be a worse crime than the rape, and criminal courts also normally consider murder to be worse.

Which comes around to the fundamental misogyny of the Catholic Church's position here, doesn't it?

Essentially, the Church just said that the life of a female (underage, no less) counts for less than two fetuses foisted upon her by RAPE.

So, instead of standing up for saving a life, the Bishop has, in effect, said that the lives of women are worthless the moment they become pregnant.

Second, his limp assessment of the rapist's actions further reinforces the fucked up values that he is foisting upon the world.

In effect, the church is punishing the people who did the right thing, and quietly washing its hands of what the rapist did. Sounds a lot like their deliberate cover-ups of the pedophile priests starting the in 1960s!

s said...

Look, you don't have to agree with the church, but it's become quite obvious that you're don't even want to understand any point of view other than your own. Goodnight.

MgS said...

It's not me trying to defend a position which is essentially justifying allowing a 9 year old to die because somebody raped her.